3 ms·

It was many different leaders. I suggest you actually read the archive document(s). Yes, they're long. Regardless of whether you think the Russians were hopele

by dmpk2k 4y ago

It was many different leaders. I suggest you actually read the archive document(s). Yes, they're long. Regardless of whether you think the Russians were hopelessly naive or full of shit, it is a promise broken. Remember, we're talking about negotiations, so their opinion matters too, regardless what you or I think about it.

ceejayoz 4y ago
> It was many different leaders. None of which are empowered to individually and formally bind NATO to anything, let alone privately and verbally, and each to the Soviet Union, which hasn't existed for thirty years. "We're not gonna fuck with you while you're collapsing" was entirely reasonable and intentionally deescalatory at the time; pretending it's somehow a promise not to do anything while Russia moves into Georgia and Ukraine is silly. The Budapest Memorandum, meanwhile, is an actual signed agreement by Russia.
mopsi 4y ago
> Regardless of whether you think the Russians were hopelessly naive or full of shit, it is a promise broken. Nope. It's a PR meme created for 2007 Munich Security Conference where Putin made his famous speech and needes justifications for imperialistic ambitions. Stunning economic growth before 2008 crisis allowed him to build up an army, and there he declared his vision. Nobody talked about such assurance before ca 2006-2007, and the 1997 founding act on mutual relations between NATO and Russia excplicitly says that signatories must "respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all states and their inherent right to choose the means to ensure their own security, the inviolability of borders and peoples' right of self-determination as enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act and other OSCE documents"[1]. Even if we accept the premise that such assurance was given (which Gorbachev denied), then it was given to the USSR, which does not exist anymore. Former parts of that USSR themselves applied for NATO membership. Should their status be bound forever to a non-existing state? Furthermore, this approach is based on disgusting colonial attitude that Russians are a some kind of master race that has the right to decide over everyone else, while ethnically they made up barely half of the population of the USSR. What about the other half? Do they not have the right to determine their future? Are they forever slaves of the ghost of the USSR? [1] https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_25468.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_25468.htm
The_Colonel 4y ago
> Regardless of whether you think the Russians were hopelessly naive or full of shit, it is a promise broken. No, Russian diplomats were not naive. They knew full well that whatever is not on paper does not exist. It's surreal that 30 years later, we act like poor Russian diplomats didn't know that some random utterances made during long meetings won't be set in stone as an official policy forever. Those people making such promises were not authorized to make binding promises anyway (something which Russian diplomats were aware of). There's a reason why agreement drafts undergo extensive analysis, vetting and approval process.

by dmpk2k 4y ago

ceejayoz 4y ago

> It was many different leaders. None of which are empowered to individually and formally bind NATO to anything, let alone privately and verbally, and each to the Soviet Union, which hasn't existed for thirty years. "We're not gonna fuck with you while you're collapsing" was entirely reasonable and intentionally deescalatory at the time; pretending it's somehow a promise not to do anything while Russia moves into Georgia and Ukraine is silly. The Budapest Memorandum, meanwhile, is an actual signed agreement by Russia.

mopsi 4y ago

> Regardless of whether you think the Russians were hopelessly naive or full of shit, it is a promise broken. Nope. It's a PR meme created for 2007 Munich Security Conference where Putin made his famous speech and needes justifications for imperialistic ambitions. Stunning economic growth before 2008 crisis allowed him to build up an army, and there he declared his vision. Nobody talked about such assurance before ca 2006-2007, and the 1997 founding act on mutual relations between NATO and Russia excplicitly says that signatories must "respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all states and their inherent right to choose the means to ensure their own security, the inviolability of borders and peoples' right of self-determination as enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act and other OSCE documents"[1]. Even if we accept the premise that such assurance was given (which Gorbachev denied), then it was given to the USSR, which does not exist anymore. Former parts of that USSR themselves applied for NATO membership. Should their status be bound forever to a non-existing state? Furthermore, this approach is based on disgusting colonial attitude that Russians are a some kind of master race that has the right to decide over everyone else, while ethnically they made up barely half of the population of the USSR. What about the other half? Do they not have the right to determine their future? Are they forever slaves of the ghost of the USSR? [1] https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_25468.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_25468.htm

The_Colonel 4y ago

> Regardless of whether you think the Russians were hopelessly naive or full of shit, it is a promise broken. No, Russian diplomats were not naive. They knew full well that whatever is not on paper does not exist. It's surreal that 30 years later, we act like poor Russian diplomats didn't know that some random utterances made during long meetings won't be set in stone as an official policy forever. Those people making such promises were not authorized to make binding promises anyway (something which Russian diplomats were aware of). There's a reason why agreement drafts undergo extensive analysis, vetting and approval process.