I am 2 days too late, but will reply nonetheless. I fully agree with your arguments about NATO expansion and am not trying to apologize Russian aggression.
However, it does not change how the Russians perceived NATO expansion which matters in todays conflicts:
> "The final assurance was Clinton’s agreement (despite Russia’s brutal Chechen war and multiple domestic pressures) to come to Moscow in May 1995 for the 50th anniversary celebrations of the victory over Hitler. In Moscow, Yeltsin berated Clinton about NATO expansion, seeing “nothing but humiliation” for Russia: “For me to agree to the borders of NATO expanding towards those of Russia – that would constitute a betrayal on my part of the Russian people."
The Russians see the developments of the early 1990s as humiliating and as the spark of the modern conflict. It became much more serious in the late 2000s under Putin but the developments of the mid-90s already set things on a rotten path regarding the relationship between the West and Russia.
You see, now you are inventing strawmen like "eternal commitment" and "the narrative of how NATO has always wanted to surround Russia". I don't think I can continue this conversation if you are not talking in good faith.
"By the time new members were accepted into NATO ... Russia had started its descent into a totalitarian dictatorship"
The decision to expand NATO was made in 1997 [0]
And by the way, here is a passage from wikipedia on that first round of NATO enlargement [1]:
"That year, Russian leaders like Foreign Minister Andrei Kozyrev indicated their country's opposition to NATO enlargement. While Russian President Boris Yeltsin did sign an agreement with NATO in May 1997 that included text referring to new membership, he clearly described NATO expansion as "unacceptable" and a threat to Russian security in his December 1997 National Security Blueprint."
And a bit from "What Eltsin heard" [2]:
"On December 1, Foreign Minister Kozyrev unexpectedly refused to sign up for the Partnership of Peace; and on December 5, Yeltsin lashed out about NATO at the Budapest summit of the CSCE, in front of a surprised Clinton: “Why are you sowing the seeds of mistrust? ... Europe is in danger of plunging into a cold peace …. History demonstrates that it is a dangerous illusion to suppose that the destinies of continents and of the world community in general can somehow be managed from one single capital.” "
We told them we wouldn't expand NATO further toward Russia. Then we went back on our word and did it.
Russia responds to Western meddling in its "backyard" with geopolitical moves in Crimea and Ukraine, and meddling in the US election.
When the Russians started messing about in Cuba, we nearly went full WW3 on them.
For what purpose did we go back on our word? We won the cold war. The best path forward would have been to strengthen ties so the two superpowers could work together to deal with the world's problems.
Instead we decided to humiliate the Russians, and the pro-west Yeltsin was eventually replaced by the nationalist Putin.
Whoever was making these policy decisions in the '90s -- What were they thinking?
Not sure where I compared the NATO expansion, a peaceful one, to Russia's invasions of Georgia and Ukraine.
Perhaps it was when you said, "Of those two, Russia and NATO, the only expansion since the end of the cold war and the fall of the USSR was done by NATO."
> Responsibility for this war rests with Russia and Russia alone. But that should not obscure the fact that NATO, led by Washington, laid the groundwork for confrontation with a series of missteps after the breakup of the Soviet Union, provocations that fueled Russian resentment and fears of Western encirclement. First came the ill-advised expansion of NATO in the late 1990s, which was criticized not only by the left, but by a long and impressive list of former establishment cold warriors, including George Kennan, Richard Pipes, Sam Nunn, and many more.
In the spirit of adult conversation: 1990s enlargement of NATO was and is 90%+ popular in these countries. Exactly because we knew Russia will at some point try to recreate USSR/Tzar Russia/whatever the new name is. Russian elites think they have "the right" to govern these lands (go read Dugin if you disagree). And Russian government after fall of USSR means limited democracy at best, authoritarian government most likely, totalitarianism at worst.
These fears were portrayed by western Europe and even USA as "russophobia" and "eastern post-communist paranoia". Germans even a month ago treated them as such. I think this opinion should be reevaluated in the light of 3 wars Russia started since 2008 and especially this invasion of Ukraine. It's not paranoia. It's realism.
It was the west that was mistaken. There should be admission. And reevaluation of many conclusions based on that wrong opinion. I think it is happening, but this article makes me doubt that.
The hope that Russia will reform itself into a proper democracy, or even that it will become a rational authoritarian country you can make business with - it's not realistic. It could be possible if Russia went through the same thing that Germany and Japan did after WW2. Occupation, division, reeducation, economic miracle, business as usual.
But Russia didn't. USSR fell by itself and we just moved on straight to business as usual. So they predictably made a whole mythology about betrayal, decadent liberal west, traditional values, holy purpose of Russia, revenge and creating conservative heaven on earth. West made Hitler 2.0. But not because it "provoked" Russia. Provocation wasn't needed. Fall of the USSR was all the provocation necessary. The opposite - the mistake was letting the hate and misfortune after cold war loss fester without dealing with it.
I understand that USA might not want to defend post-communist countries from Russia. But there's a difference between saying "we don't want to defend you" and "defending you is a mistake because it provokes Russia". The mistake was the opposite.
PS if you take anything from this wall of text - go read Dugin. And compare to Main Kampf. Elites of Russia all read Dugin.
Russia thinks it owns this land. Anything that isn't Warsaw Pact 2.0 will "provoke them". They aren't hiding this BTW. If "the west" thinks that we should just give up independence to let them avoid WW3 - sorry but that's not going to happen. Nobody who experienced real democracy wants back into "ruskiy mir".
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.
> Since that time, NATO has been steadily expanded and pushing closer and closer to Russia's borders, notwithstanding the said assurances, which the West is quick to point out were not in any way binding.
Is it NATO "expanding" or post-soviet countries begging on their knees to be accepted into it for protection?
If Baltic states, Poland would not have been accepted into NATO - I think there would be soviet union 2.0, either by straight annexation like with Ukraine or parts of Georgia and Moldova or with economic/political control, like with Belarus and Ukraine before Maidan.
Many post-soviet countries after freeing themselves from soviet shackles went running straight to bang onto EU and NATO doors. Some have been lucky to be accepted, some were not.
Since forever Germany, US and alike do not "get" russia. Time and time again the west works with russia with optimism and attempt to establish relations like it would be any other liberal democracy.
US being assholes does not forgive russia to be an asshole, with old-school bombing of civilian properties. russia has a choice to be a proper global economical player, but chooses not to - time and time again.
>Beset by chaos at home, an increasingly beleaguered Yeltsin turned to historical revisionism. He began to interpret the Two Plus Four Treaty as a ban on NATO expansion east of Germany, on the basis that it only permitted alliance activities on East German territory. He (and later Putin) claimed that the failure to mention Eastern Europe, together with the stipulated restrictions in relation to former GDR terrain, meant an implicit Western rejection of eastward enlargement.
Also later
> At preliminary bilateral talks in Helsinki in March 1997, Clinton refused to respond to Yeltsin’s call for binding restrictions on the establishment of NATO security infrastructure in new member states.
I would never say that I support Russia in any of this, but it's important to put the hypocritical Western pearl-clutching in context:
The near-universal Western condemnation of Putin includes citing the "emotional address" in which he complained bitterly that the U.S. and its allies had "cheated us again and again, made decisions behind our back, presenting us with completed facts with the expansion of NATO in the East, with the deployment of military infrastructure at our borders. They always told us the same thing: 'Well, this doesn't involve you.' "
Putin's complaints are factually accurate. When President Gorbachev accepted the unification of Germany as part of NATO -- an astonishing concession in the light of history -- there was a quid pro quo. Washington agreed that NATO would not move "one inch eastward," referring to East Germany.
The promise was immediately broken, and when Gorbachev complained, he was instructed that it was only a verbal promise, so without force.
President Clinton proceeded to expand NATO much farther to the east, to Russia's borders. Today there are calls to extend NATO even to Ukraine, deep into the historic Russian "neighborhood." But it "doesn't involve" the Russians, because its responsibility to "uphold peace and stability" requires that American red lines are at Russia's borders.
NATO expansion is viewed by the Russians as a violation of previous alleged agreements and assurances by the West, and a HUGE sore point with the Russians, to the point that hardliners there believe this to be an existential crisis.
So yes, in the higher Russian circles they do truly believe that this is all America's fault, and in truth America absolutely did harm relations with Russia and for better or worse knowingly intimidated them to the point that lashing out became likely.
However, one cannot attack another and then blame someone else for one's own violence. This is not an acceptable response to such grievances; it's how an abuser reacts.
But people don't like complicated explanations, so we settle on "Russia is bad" vs "America is bad" and then pick sides to sling mud from.
People never quotes Gorbachev conclusion in that article, since he denies your denial:
"The decision for the U.S. and its allies to expand NATO into the east was decisively made in 1993. I called this a big mistake from the very beginning. It was definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990. With regards to Germany, they were legally enshrined and are being observed."
https://rg.ru/2014/10/15/gorbachev.html
No, the assurances were very explicit: NATO will not seek to expand one inch to the East.
While countries are free to associate, there are obvious diplomatic costs to joining a hostile military alliance (and NATO is still explicitly hostile to Russia). The fact that Russia has a single blunt instrument that it chooses to wield in these situations is as much the fault of Russia as it is the fault of people seeking to bring hostile military bases on their borders.
And again, I am fully aware of how noxious Russia is to the countries that it controls, either today or in the past. Russian influence is autocratic, corruption focused, socially conservative, and insists on Russian interests in the region before the interests of the local populace. I am under no illusions about Russia as some benevolent victim, and not trying to make any propaganda about that.
But that doesn't mean we should ascribe their actions to pure malice either, as much propaganda is wont to do; nor that we should feel that much better about being under the influence of their rivals - Empires are never good, and it's always much better to be self-determined, even if at various points various empires have been better or worse in certain regions.
The Soviet minister of foreign affairs has explained that references to "NATO expansion" have been mischaracterized, and that their discussions were limited to placement of US forces in East Germany after reunification, and that no wider discussion about the future of Eastern Europe in NATO ever took place, let alone reached any agreement, because at the time they couldn't have imagined that the USSR would cease to exist in a few years. Both he and his successor find nothing wrong with the fact that most of Central and Eastern Europe eventually joined NATO and see no reason to whine about betrayal like Putin. If anything, they regret that the Europeans and Americans didn't engage more with Russia and didn't pressure it enough towards becoming a civilized country:
While the West failed to seize the opportunity and some diplomatic mistakes were made on both sides, the United States and NATO were on the right side of history by admitting new democracies to the Alliance and being willing to find an accommodation with Russia. It was Moscow that returned to its antagonism toward NATO, which has been intensifying ever since. Yeltsin’s chosen successor president, Vladimir Putin, tried to hinder the West with a charm offensive in the early years of the 21 century and even hinted that Russia might join NATO. In the meantime, domestic anti-American and anti-NATO propaganda has continued to gain momentum. Today the Kremlin has left little doubt about its attitude toward the Alliance in words and in deeds.
NATO remains the main power to safeguard the liberal world order. It is under attack from autocratic, populist and extremist forces who claim that the organization is outdated. The Kremlin’s champs and chumps in the West portray NATO as a bloc promoting American hegemony, expanding to the East and cornering Russia. It is reassuring however, that the U.S. Congress continues to display firm bipartisan support for NATO.
The prospects of a new opening in Russian–NATO relations will depend on the resilience and firmness of the Alliance and on deep changes in Moscow’s domestic and foreign policy. I believe that sooner or later the Russian people will follow the suit of other European nations in finding their national interest in democratic reforms and cooperation with NATO and other Western institutions.
"There wasn't really any indication of Ukraine joining NATO"
Yes there was. Going back to Clinton, there were moved to expand NATO eastward (at least once Nuclear possession was sorted out under Bush I/Baker) and it's been a sore spot for Putin ever since, although only distractingly so since about 2014. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_37750.htm
‘Russia was provoked into this war because of things that happened 30 years ago’ is such bullshit apologia.
NATO was a defensive pact against Russia- and just because the Soviet Union collapsed does not mean Russia is somehow now moral or benign. They are run by brital KGB thug who faked his country’s 9/11 so they could build some patriotic solidarity killing Chechnyans.
> NATO violated agreements with Russia not to expand towards Russia's borders over the past 20 years, and Russia's paranoia and aggression made this outcome predictable.
This is a persistent myth that is not reality, the soviet president at the time even says that no such promise was ever made.
> However, Gorbachev neither asked for nor was given any formal guarantees that there would be no further expansion of NATO beyond the territory of a united Germany.34 The issue was not even under discussion at NATO at the time, since the Warsaw Pact and the USSR were both still in existence. Even if the Warsaw Pact’s days were clearly numbered, there was no expectation in Western capitals in the autumn of 1990 that the USSR would collapse a year later.
> As early as December 1991, Russian President Boris Yeltsin wrote to NATO leaders saying that his country would join the Alliance some time in the future. Yeltsin’s successor Vladimir Putin, hinted during his first presidential term that Russia could become a full fledged member of the Atlantic Alliance.
However, it does not change how the Russians perceived NATO expansion which matters in todays conflicts:
> "The final assurance was Clinton’s agreement (despite Russia’s brutal Chechen war and multiple domestic pressures) to come to Moscow in May 1995 for the 50th anniversary celebrations of the victory over Hitler. In Moscow, Yeltsin berated Clinton about NATO expansion, seeing “nothing but humiliation” for Russia: “For me to agree to the borders of NATO expanding towards those of Russia – that would constitute a betrayal on my part of the Russian people."
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2021...
The Russians see the developments of the early 1990s as humiliating and as the spark of the modern conflict. It became much more serious in the late 2000s under Putin but the developments of the mid-90s already set things on a rotten path regarding the relationship between the West and Russia.
reply