This seems like much ado about nothing. Yes, in joining these countries to NATO the west violated the letter of this agreement but under the Yelsen administration this probably was not percieved as hostile and no one forsaw the retrograde in the relationship between Russia and NATO at that time.
I believe in fact that at the beginning of Vladimir Putin's first term there was still talk of Russia joining NATO.
So, to treat this as some nefarious western ploy is basically to ignore the thawing in relations that occurred in the nineties, the trust that was growing at that time and the hope we all began to take for granted.
> no one forsaw the retrograde in the relationship
That's plainly not true. George Kennan did.
"I think it is the beginning of a new cold war," said Mr. Kennan from his Princeton home. "I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the Founding Fathers of this country turn over in their graves. We have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we have neither the resources nor the intention to do so in any serious way. [NATO expansion] was simply a light-hearted action by a Senate that has no real interest in foreign affairs."
"What bothers me is how superficial and ill informed the whole Senate debate was," added Mr. Kennan, who was present at the creation of NATO and whose anonymous 1947 article in the journal Foreign Affairs, signed "X," defined America’s cold-war containment policy for 40 years. "I was particularly bothered by the references to Russia as a country dying to attack Western Europe. Don’t people understand? Our differences in the cold war were with the Soviet Communist regime. And now we are turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime.
I don’t think we can poopoo it that easily. The expansion of NATO is one of Russia’s biggest grievances against the West. Russia is in an historically vulnerable position right now which is a large part of the reason why they’re behaving so aggressively and recklessly.
The fact is that they made the assurance, and then lied and said they never gave such an assurance. If you think lying isn't nefarious, that's your outlook.
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?
Whenever relations with nuclear powers are concerned, trust between these governments is an important issue for everyone. I don't think anyone has claimed that there was a conspiracy at the time. But for the West to renege on past agreements undermines existing ones and makes future agreements more difficult with any party. The world is much more dangerous as a result.
2 1/2 minutes to midnight.
You know that thing Russia does where it's the successor state to the Soviet Union when it's convenient for them, and an entirely different entity when it's not? Yeah, that door swings both ways.
Assurances made to the Soviet Union expired with the Soviet Union. And--big surprise here--some former Soviet republics don't wish to be dominated by Russia again. Given the choice, they would prefer to be dominated by the US, the UK, France, and Germany. They might not make the trains run on time, or keep everyone employed, but they do keep the toilet paper on the shelves.
It would have been much better to not extend Nato, but the new states form their own defence network and then cooperate with Nato with a bilateral agreement.
But the UK and the US pushed and the states for obvious reasons feared Russia.
As history taught us. such a agreements doesn't work for small countries very well. Actually Czechoslovakia had such a agreement with France and in turn with England (France had agreement with England). But both countries left us behind and ignored agreement when Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia.
If you look at the figures you'll find out that such a defense network could never have worked as a deterrent and wouldn't work today either. Russia had and still has a gigantic amount of conventional troops including heavy artillery and thousands of tanks, and can easily gain air superiority in any local conflict.
That's why the US always insisted on a first nuclear strike option during Cold War, which almost lead to the total destruction of the world in 1983 when the Soviets misinterpreted a NATO maneuver as preparation for a first strike.
As a Pole - that's the dumbest idea I've ever heard. Joining NATO was the best thing our country did, possibly even better than joining the EU. Being in NATO gives me peace that we won't be attacked/occupied/annexed by Russia again. We could have the greatest army in the world and without being in NATO, a covert landgrab like the one that happened in Ukraine wouldn't be stopped.
> assured Gorbachev on February 10, 1990: “We believe that NATO should not expand the sphere of its activity.” (See Document 9) After this meeting, Kohl could hardly contain his excitement at Gorbachev’s agreement in principle for German unification and, as part of the Helsinki formula that states choose their own alliances, so Germany could choose NATO.
So, if unified Germany could choose NATO - that will mean that NATO is expanding.
So, basically TLDR - some vague promises to Soviet Union, some vague promises from Soviet Union.
Of course current Russia will twist history the way they want.
On one side, this is irrelevant: international relations are the wildest arena, where even written contracts can be casually swept aside, so a bunch of “reassurances” will never be worth anything.
On the other, every action has a reaction. Many in the ‘90s predicted that abusing Russian weakness was risky: it was akin to what France and Britain did to Germany at Versailles, which was a critical contribution to the rise of Nazism. Surprise surprise, we now have a hyper-nationalistic leader in power whose entire platform is “getting Russia respected again”.
What is really shocking, imho, is that a lot of the players who were around back then are still on the conference circuit, write editorials and teach at universities. Somebody actually listen to people who compromised the best chance we’ve had at global peace for a hundred years.
I wish somebody started something like theyscrewedup.com, a website where people in power get reminded of when and where they got it so wrong that they should just shut up already.
There’s no formal peace treaty either, but the GDR acknowledged the border in 1950 (Görlitzer Abkommen), the BRD in 1970 (Part of Warschauer Vertrag) and as part of the 2+4 treaties, the Oder-Neiße border was once again confirmed in 1990. So even if there should be no formal annexation, there’s absolutely no doubt about where the German eastern border is.
Well that's not a first in "misinterpretation". Nuclear disarmament of Ukraine after the collapse of the Iron Curtain was accompanied by a guarantee of Ukrainian borders from US, UK and Russia. [1] But what the fine print didn't say is that the guarantee does not apply to little green men, and that co-signers don't make guarantees against each other. But on paper it sounds great!
Seeing this coming out now means in several years Poland will be "liberated from corrupt government" by Russia, and like every time before, our "friends" will stand aside.
Watching from the other side of the border (and married to a polish wife), I must say that the polish government is currently working hard on turning friends into "friends".
Exactly, is it problem with smaller countries feeling continually threatened by Russia or with Russia itself who just recently annexed big chunks of Ukraine?
How typical. Downvote anything it happens to challenge your beliefs or interests without providing _any_ proof of why they (your beliefs/interests) happen to fall into the right side of things.
One more time @HN admins: Please remove downvote capability. All it does is poisoning the conversations and putting HN community into a downward spiral of adolescent behaviors.
Reasonably close. If you're worried that there is astroturfing or some other kind of organized manipulation going on, I think it's unlikely. There's an easier explanation: HN is a highly international community. People post from many countries, naturally including many Eastern European countries in this thread. These peoples don't see things the same way, for deep and valid reasons, and the issues raised by the topic touch on matters of survival and tribe that have a lot of energy in them.
Read page 2 of the article itself and look up the author. I think the article is credible.
More interestingly: so what? (not a flip, but serious question -- there is a what). The article points out that 1> It was long claimed by some that these assurances were given. 2> Turns out that they were in fact given. 3> Then some years later they were abrogated.
To some (including me), this is perhaps unfortunate at worst: People make all sorts of statements, sometimes earnestly and sometimes in error. But without formal followup they are just comments. (I happen to think philosophically that expanding NATO was a good idea but felt at the time and now that it was a mistake on practical grounds). So from my perspective this is a "big shrug" of an issue.
But to others, particularly some former Warsaw Pact nationals, this is "yet another example of western duplicity". Since nothing was enshrined by treaty, there is no legalism to stand on, but not every society obsesses with legalisms. Just because I disagree with them doesn't mean I should't appreciate their attitude.
And the article even goes out of its way to point out that the Soviet Union had the absolute legal right to veto any unification -- which was a result of the SoF agreement and 1948 peace treaties ending WWII in Europe. In retrospect it was a mistake for the USSR not to get this representation "in writing"
(BTW similar agreements are not yet in place in Japan BTW, and are unlikely to ever be)
I'm confused about what you mean by this. See some background on what exactly?
Edit: I am asking because I feel like your post is suggesting in a very roundabout way that perhaps the commenters in the thread are not "authentic" for whatever reason. (If this is the case, I have to condemn the implication in the strongest possible terms.) But perhaps I've misunderstood.
[+] [-] DubiousPusher|8 years ago|reply
I believe in fact that at the beginning of Vladimir Putin's first term there was still talk of Russia joining NATO.
So, to treat this as some nefarious western ploy is basically to ignore the thawing in relations that occurred in the nineties, the trust that was growing at that time and the hope we all began to take for granted.
[+] [-] thriftwy|8 years ago|reply
That's plainly not true. George Kennan did.
"I think it is the beginning of a new cold war," said Mr. Kennan from his Princeton home. "I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the Founding Fathers of this country turn over in their graves. We have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we have neither the resources nor the intention to do so in any serious way. [NATO expansion] was simply a light-hearted action by a Senate that has no real interest in foreign affairs."
"What bothers me is how superficial and ill informed the whole Senate debate was," added Mr. Kennan, who was present at the creation of NATO and whose anonymous 1947 article in the journal Foreign Affairs, signed "X," defined America’s cold-war containment policy for 40 years. "I was particularly bothered by the references to Russia as a country dying to attack Western Europe. Don’t people understand? Our differences in the cold war were with the Soviet Communist regime. And now we are turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime.
[+] [-] geowwy|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] musage|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] csense|8 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] bobzibub|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] logfromblammo|8 years ago|reply
Assurances made to the Soviet Union expired with the Soviet Union. And--big surprise here--some former Soviet republics don't wish to be dominated by Russia again. Given the choice, they would prefer to be dominated by the US, the UK, France, and Germany. They might not make the trains run on time, or keep everyone employed, but they do keep the toilet paper on the shelves.
[+] [-] _Codemonkeyism|8 years ago|reply
But the UK and the US pushed and the states for obvious reasons feared Russia.
[+] [-] czechdeveloper|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] finchisko|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JohnStrange|8 years ago|reply
That's why the US always insisted on a first nuclear strike option during Cold War, which almost lead to the total destruction of the world in 1983 when the Soviets misinterpreted a NATO maneuver as preparation for a first strike.
[+] [-] gambiting|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aluhut|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] gandhium|8 years ago|reply
So, if unified Germany could choose NATO - that will mean that NATO is expanding.
So, basically TLDR - some vague promises to Soviet Union, some vague promises from Soviet Union.
Of course current Russia will twist history the way they want.
[+] [-] toyg|8 years ago|reply
On the other, every action has a reaction. Many in the ‘90s predicted that abusing Russian weakness was risky: it was akin to what France and Britain did to Germany at Versailles, which was a critical contribution to the rise of Nazism. Surprise surprise, we now have a hyper-nationalistic leader in power whose entire platform is “getting Russia respected again”.
What is really shocking, imho, is that a lot of the players who were around back then are still on the conference circuit, write editorials and teach at universities. Somebody actually listen to people who compromised the best chance we’ve had at global peace for a hundred years.
I wish somebody started something like theyscrewedup.com, a website where people in power get reminded of when and where they got it so wrong that they should just shut up already.
[+] [-] finchisko|8 years ago|reply
Guess who is first on my list. :D
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dmichulke|8 years ago|reply
Edit: AFAIK there is no de iure annexation of those territories
[+] [-] Xylakant|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sgift|8 years ago|reply
You know wrong, this issue was settled in the 2+4 treaty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Final_Settlement...
[+] [-] aluhut|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] johnchristopher|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] f055|8 years ago|reply
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine#Bu...
[+] [-] thriftwy|8 years ago|reply
First NATO expanded, 15 years later, little green men.
You can't blame former on latter.
[+] [-] yetihehe|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Xylakant|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bolololo1|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RightMillennial|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mk3|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] beaker52|8 years ago|reply
Whilst the "new documents" aren't actually attributed on page 1, they're linked to on page 2.
Definitely set my russian-propaganda alarm off, but in this case it appears to be legit.
[+] [-] alkyon|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nl|8 years ago|reply
I haven't seen any allegations of this (and I follow it reasonably closely). Wikipedia doesn't have any obvious links[1].
I've seen this story elsewhere years ago (back around when the linked WP story was posted).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_National_Interest
[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02...
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] downvote_me|8 years ago|reply
One more time @HN admins: Please remove downvote capability. All it does is poisoning the conversations and putting HN community into a downward spiral of adolescent behaviors.
[+] [-] joonoro|8 years ago|reply
Yeah the author sure does look sketchy huh /s
[+] [-] aluhut|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dang|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gumby|8 years ago|reply
More interestingly: so what? (not a flip, but serious question -- there is a what). The article points out that 1> It was long claimed by some that these assurances were given. 2> Turns out that they were in fact given. 3> Then some years later they were abrogated.
To some (including me), this is perhaps unfortunate at worst: People make all sorts of statements, sometimes earnestly and sometimes in error. But without formal followup they are just comments. (I happen to think philosophically that expanding NATO was a good idea but felt at the time and now that it was a mistake on practical grounds). So from my perspective this is a "big shrug" of an issue.
But to others, particularly some former Warsaw Pact nationals, this is "yet another example of western duplicity". Since nothing was enshrined by treaty, there is no legalism to stand on, but not every society obsesses with legalisms. Just because I disagree with them doesn't mean I should't appreciate their attitude.
And the article even goes out of its way to point out that the Soviet Union had the absolute legal right to veto any unification -- which was a result of the SoF agreement and 1948 peace treaties ending WWII in Europe. In retrospect it was a mistake for the USSR not to get this representation "in writing"
(BTW similar agreements are not yet in place in Japan BTW, and are unlikely to ever be)
[+] [-] iamnothere|8 years ago|reply
Edit: I am asking because I feel like your post is suggesting in a very roundabout way that perhaps the commenters in the thread are not "authentic" for whatever reason. (If this is the case, I have to condemn the implication in the strongest possible terms.) But perhaps I've misunderstood.