5 ms·

That's not the impression one would get following the last two decades of geopolitics. In the 90s the dangers of NATO expansion were still very much recognized

That's not the impression one would get following the last two decades of geopolitics. In the 90s the dangers of NATO expansion were still very much recognized and voiced [0] when Clinton was working towards it. Bush didn't follow straight up, had 9/11 to deal with and used that to justify quitting anti-ballistic missile treaties in Europe [1], allegedly to defend against Iran, when in practice it very much killed a "nuclear impasse" that kept Russia comfortable, and then Bush suddenly also started talking about NATO expansion [2]. All of that was already quite suspect to Russia, so it was agreed to give Russia something like a voice at NATO [3], which never went past symbolism, but allowed Russia to save at least some face and was supposed to calm nerves. That was needed, because the US invasion, and following NATO occupation of Afghanistan translated to histories largest NATO operation, right in the backyard of Russia. Consultation with Russia about that; Zero What followed was more NATO expansion, the US further undermining established European security frameworks [4] to degree that Russia would simply quit them out of protest. Afaik, right now there is only one security treaty still in effect between Russia and the US, New START, which is about keeping total arsenals of both parties in check. But in terms of security treaties regulating the stationing of conventional troops or treaties regulating the placement of ballistic missile systems in Europe, there's literally nothing left to keep everybody in check. A situation, that from Russia's PoV is one the US has actively worked towards [5] for these last two decades, along-side it's steady NATO expansion. Disclaimer; None of this is meant to justify the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but said invasion is very much the result of consistently ignoring Russia's own security demands, and warnings, for literally decades. That's why from the Russian PoV they are not in Ukraine on the "offensive to invade all of Europe", from the Russian PoV the bear is cornered and fighting off a still approaching aggressor, after years of roaring at it not to approach further. [0] https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-jul-07-me-10464-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-jul-07-me-10464... [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/13/international/bush-pulls-out-of-abm-treaty-putin-calls-move-a-mistake.html https://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/13/international/bush-pulls-... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/21/international/bushs-speech-on-nato-enlargement.html https://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/21/international/bushs-speec... [3] https://www.nato.int/nrc-website/en/about/index.html https://www.nato.int/nrc-website/en/about/index.html [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Conventional_Armed_Forces_in_Europe#NATO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Conventional_Armed_F... [5] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa

jcranmer 4y ago
> What followed was more NATO expansion, the US further undermining established European security frameworks [4] to degree that Russia would simply quit them out of protest. So I decided to actually go to the treaty text here to figure out what it was that US/NATO supposedly violated and... I'm not actually seeing it. This does seem to be a general pattern to me of Russia using US non-compliance with something it never agreed to as an excuse to not do things that Russia explicitly agreed to do. So forgive me if I'm not exactly sympathizing with Russia here.
- pianoben 4y ago
  I mean, Putin's an expansionistic genocidal gangster all on his own, but it's incontrovertible that Bush Jr. reneged on a very important anti-ballistic missile treaty with Russia and tried to position anti-missile systems in former Warsaw countries like Poland, thereby greatly aggravating the nuclear detente. It doesn't take all that much empathy to see it from a Russian POV - your main geopolitical rival abandons a treaty with you, and begins placing military assets near your borders? Sure, it's definitely threatening, especially if you don't trust them. It's nothing to do with their war in Ukraine, but is nevertheless real.
- freeflight 4y ago
  Curious how you are not able to see a whole Wikipedia chapter I directly linked to; > In 2007, the United States' plans to create bases in Romania and Bulgaria constituted, according to Russia, a breach of the treaty. > NATO officials disputed this and stated that the US bases were not intended as permanent and thus could not be seen as a breach. > However, it was then reported that the agreements signed with both Romania and Bulgaria in 2006 specifically allowed for permanent bases under direct US control and The Washington Times also had obtained the confirmation of a senior United States official that the facilities were intended to be permanent. Are you also unable to see the chapter that follow, about the US alleging how countries like Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Armenia and Azerbaijan were not in compliance? Do you also consider that an excuse, or is it only an excuse when Russia points out non-compliance? Particularly, considering how the US would complain about hundreds of former Soviets troops being somewhere where they had been since the Cold War, while at the same time the US was blatantly lying about permanently stationing thousands new troops increasingly closer to Russia in countries like Bulgaria and Romania. Btw; > Russia using US non-compliance with something it never agreed to The US, just like all European NATO countries, are very much party to Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. What you seem to wanting to refer to, is how the US and NATO never ratified the Adapted CFE Treaty [0], which is not the same as the original CFE Treaty. It's also quite the odd point trying to make; The US complaining about non-compliance of others, who have actually ratified it, while itself did not even ratify the treaty, is just blatantly hypocritical. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adapted_Conventional_Armed_Forces_in_Europe_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adapted_Conventional_Armed_For...

jcranmer 4y ago

> What followed was more NATO expansion, the US further undermining established European security frameworks [4] to degree that Russia would simply quit them out of protest. So I decided to actually go to the treaty text here to figure out what it was that US/NATO supposedly violated and... I'm not actually seeing it. This does seem to be a general pattern to me of Russia using US non-compliance with something it never agreed to as an excuse to not do things that Russia explicitly agreed to do. So forgive me if I'm not exactly sympathizing with Russia here.

pianoben 4y ago
I mean, Putin's an expansionistic genocidal gangster all on his own, but it's incontrovertible that Bush Jr. reneged on a very important anti-ballistic missile treaty with Russia and tried to position anti-missile systems in former Warsaw countries like Poland, thereby greatly aggravating the nuclear detente. It doesn't take all that much empathy to see it from a Russian POV - your main geopolitical rival abandons a treaty with you, and begins placing military assets near your borders? Sure, it's definitely threatening, especially if you don't trust them. It's nothing to do with their war in Ukraine, but is nevertheless real.
freeflight 4y ago
Curious how you are not able to see a whole Wikipedia chapter I directly linked to; > In 2007, the United States' plans to create bases in Romania and Bulgaria constituted, according to Russia, a breach of the treaty. > NATO officials disputed this and stated that the US bases were not intended as permanent and thus could not be seen as a breach. > However, it was then reported that the agreements signed with both Romania and Bulgaria in 2006 specifically allowed for permanent bases under direct US control and The Washington Times also had obtained the confirmation of a senior United States official that the facilities were intended to be permanent. Are you also unable to see the chapter that follow, about the US alleging how countries like Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Armenia and Azerbaijan were not in compliance? Do you also consider that an excuse, or is it only an excuse when Russia points out non-compliance? Particularly, considering how the US would complain about hundreds of former Soviets troops being somewhere where they had been since the Cold War, while at the same time the US was blatantly lying about permanently stationing thousands new troops increasingly closer to Russia in countries like Bulgaria and Romania. Btw; > Russia using US non-compliance with something it never agreed to The US, just like all European NATO countries, are very much party to Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. What you seem to wanting to refer to, is how the US and NATO never ratified the Adapted CFE Treaty [0], which is not the same as the original CFE Treaty. It's also quite the odd point trying to make; The US complaining about non-compliance of others, who have actually ratified it, while itself did not even ratify the treaty, is just blatantly hypocritical. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adapted_Conventional_Armed_Forces_in_Europe_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adapted_Conventional_Armed_For...