Newly Declassified Documents: NATO Wouldn't Move Past East German Border(nationalinterest.org)
nationalinterest.org
Newly Declassified Documents: NATO Wouldn't Move Past East German Border
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/newly-declassified-documents-gorbachev-told-nato-wouldnt-23629
191 comments
> 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.
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.
First of all, removing Soviet regime was not bloodless, that's a bullshit. Second - Soviet communist regime did not evaporate, these people were still ruling Russia and still are.
> removing Soviet regime was not bloodless, that's a bullshit
Can you elaborate?
> Soviet communist regime did not evaporate, these people were still ruling Russia and still are
That's because everybody who was more pro-West got negative reinforcement of every their action and got selected out of politician population.
Basically, each time Russia tried to play friendly, something was gladly taken from it with no compensation.
Can you elaborate?
> Soviet communist regime did not evaporate, these people were still ruling Russia and still are
That's because everybody who was more pro-West got negative reinforcement of every their action and got selected out of politician population.
Basically, each time Russia tried to play friendly, something was gladly taken from it with no compensation.
Apparently George Kennan didn't foresee how expansionist Russia would become, Crimea and the Ukraine being only two examples. I for one am very happy that NATO expansion ensures it has more divisions than Russia, vs. being out-numbered more than 2-1 during the USSR days.
What-ever craven fool promised the Russians that NATO would stand aside and let it do whatever it wanted to former USSR countries was an idiot, and their promises were never binding on free peoples.
What-ever craven fool promised the Russians that NATO would stand aside and let it do whatever it wanted to former USSR countries was an idiot, and their promises were never binding on free peoples.
Good point. I guess it should have read 'few forsaw the retrograde in the relationship.' What I mean was that, I think a lot of folks saw the Russian's international ambitions as dwindling massively after the fall of the Soviet Union and that they'd focus on improving their domestic situation.
I think most of us expected something akin to the decolonization that took place after WWII, which vastly dimished the power of old European powers.
I think most of us expected something akin to the decolonization that took place after WWII, which vastly dimished the power of old European powers.
Yeah, and instead we've got huge Empire of Europe which left Russia behind. And more assertive USA than ever.
Your quote is the exception that proves the rule. He speaks of nobody seeing how this would damage the relationship.
> And now we are turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime.
Those "very people" are not the same as those currently in power. The latter are presumably, in one way or another, the ones propagating this particular reading of history.
Those "very people" are not the same as those currently in power. The latter are presumably, in one way or another, the ones propagating this particular reading of history.
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.
How so? NATO expanding to Poland and the Baltic countries is more of a perceived threat to Russia and its own colonial aspirations rather than an actual military threat.
In my opinion losing economic influence is what Russia should really be worried about. With Poland and the Baltic countries becoming part of the EU they not only gradually lost influence on these markets but the potential access to the larger European market those provided as well.
These issues certainly can't be seen separately. On a global scale economic prosperity often is connected to strategic power. However, it might be beneficial to Russia (not necessarily Russian politicians, though) to, instead of considering these questions in terms of national grievances, proactively seek more trade deals and economic cooperation. In the 1990s even Russia becoming part of the EU wasn't that far out.
In my opinion losing economic influence is what Russia should really be worried about. With Poland and the Baltic countries becoming part of the EU they not only gradually lost influence on these markets but the potential access to the larger European market those provided as well.
These issues certainly can't be seen separately. On a global scale economic prosperity often is connected to strategic power. However, it might be beneficial to Russia (not necessarily Russian politicians, though) to, instead of considering these questions in terms of national grievances, proactively seek more trade deals and economic cooperation. In the 1990s even Russia becoming part of the EU wasn't that far out.
Russia lost it's economic importance here before we even joined the EU, and it's lost even more of it's importance as a trading partner, because Russia tried to use trade as a weapon. They have repeatedly randomly banned imports of products (mostly food) from Estonia and other countries for made up reasons, then removed the restrictions to repeat that again in some years. Then after a statue was moved they basically stopped all oil exports through Estonian ports, the excuse being an emergency repair that lasted ages on a railroad next to their border with Estonia.
Because of this most people avoid doing business with Russia, because it's just so random. You build relations, start selling something to them and then their state randomly bans the imports of the thing you've been exporting. There's too much risk.
If they were a reliable trading partner then everyone would be happier, and they'd have more soft power.
Because of this most people avoid doing business with Russia, because it's just so random. You build relations, start selling something to them and then their state randomly bans the imports of the thing you've been exporting. There's too much risk.
If they were a reliable trading partner then everyone would be happier, and they'd have more soft power.
I struggle to think what you could even trade with Russia besides gas/oil and other natural resources. I'm sure Estonia is hard at work with renewable power sources so Russia will just fall behind even further. One day the Baltic countries won't even need Russian gas.
A historically vulnerable position? Vulnerable to what? To an invasion by NATO?
There's two ways you can answer that question. The first is, no, it's not vulnerable, because there are exactly zero NATO members who have any interest whatsoever in invading Russia. That is simply not going to happen.
The second answer is to remember history. Napoleon invaded and captured Moscow. Hitler invaded and made it to just outside Moscow. Both of them started from further west than NATO could start. So, yes, from the perspective of history, Russia has less of a geographic buffer than it had in the past.
But I think Putin isn't really afraid of a NATO invasion. What he's really afraid of is a color revolution. He therefore is building grievances against the West, not because he fears NATO, but because he fears real democracy. (Yes, I know, the democracy in the west has problems, and is less "real" than it should be. It's still miles ahead of what's happening in Russia, though. And Putin wants the situation in Russia to stay as it is.)
There's two ways you can answer that question. The first is, no, it's not vulnerable, because there are exactly zero NATO members who have any interest whatsoever in invading Russia. That is simply not going to happen.
The second answer is to remember history. Napoleon invaded and captured Moscow. Hitler invaded and made it to just outside Moscow. Both of them started from further west than NATO could start. So, yes, from the perspective of history, Russia has less of a geographic buffer than it had in the past.
But I think Putin isn't really afraid of a NATO invasion. What he's really afraid of is a color revolution. He therefore is building grievances against the West, not because he fears NATO, but because he fears real democracy. (Yes, I know, the democracy in the west has problems, and is less "real" than it should be. It's still miles ahead of what's happening in Russia, though. And Putin wants the situation in Russia to stay as it is.)
The simultaneous weakening of both Russia's military position and it's economic position make it far harder for Putin's cabal to persuade the masses that they are terrific managers who are making Russia great again. Whether keeping Putin comfortable should be on our agenda at all is another question of course.
> Whether keeping Putin comfortable should be on our agenda at all is another question of course.
Well, it may be to our advantage to not back him too tightly into a corner. Or at least it may be very much to our disadvantage to corner him too tightly...
Well, it may be to our advantage to not back him too tightly into a corner. Or at least it may be very much to our disadvantage to corner him too tightly...
Right - just not nec in the interest of the Russian people. A tough one.
You don't live in a country bordering Russia, do you? Historically Russia has been behaving aggressively and recklessly since at least 18th century, without much stop. Russia's western neighbors flock to NATO for a reason. Basically Russia is the bully of the neighborhood, using violence whenever it doesn't get whatever it wants.
Exactly. I do live in a country bordering Russia and we have been occupied by it twice during the last two hundred years. NATO is seen as the only way to keep our independence. Look and Georgia and Ukraine know -- both these countries started in a similar position as we after the breakup of USSR, the key difference was that they haven't joined NATO and/or EU.
In the 150 years before WW II ended there has hardly been 20 years of peace in Europe in one stretch.
Domestic European squabble developed into bloodiest conflicts the world had seen, more than once, never mind whole continents in submission and despair up until the 50s. Yet it is Russia that poses perpetual imminent threat.
Very unfortunately for territories bordering Russia, they are a, indeed, a buffer zone and get mowed down and/or change hands every time shit hits the fan. Equally so, in fact, by Russia and by the Western (“Proper”) Europe.
Domestic European squabble developed into bloodiest conflicts the world had seen, more than once, never mind whole continents in submission and despair up until the 50s. Yet it is Russia that poses perpetual imminent threat.
Very unfortunately for territories bordering Russia, they are a, indeed, a buffer zone and get mowed down and/or change hands every time shit hits the fan. Equally so, in fact, by Russia and by the Western (“Proper”) Europe.
> Look and Georgia and Ukraine know -- both these countries started in a similar position as we after the breakup of USSR, the key difference was that they haven't joined NATO and/or EU.
Semi-seriously: Ukraine at least had a treaty securing its borders by the US, UK, and Russia. If the US and UK aren't willing to act on that treaty, what makes one think they'd act on a NATO Article V invocation by them if they were NATO members?
Semi-seriously: Ukraine at least had a treaty securing its borders by the US, UK, and Russia. If the US and UK aren't willing to act on that treaty, what makes one think they'd act on a NATO Article V invocation by them if they were NATO members?
Because not invoking NATO Article V would immediately render the whole alliance useless (as this article is the whole point of NATO) and I'm sure no member of it would risk that. Russia pulling a similar trick as in Ukraine on any NATO member without serious consequences would be an achievement comparable to the victory of the Cold War.
Attacking that commitment is likely a big part of why we have the political situation that we have in the US today.
Hasn't Russia been all too keen to flex its might when it comes to Natural Gas too? As most of the nations in Eastern and Central Europe rely on Natural Gas coming from Russia for heat & some power.
The soft power Russia has seems to be growing, never mind the wars they are all too happy to fight without acknowledging that a war is being waged.
The soft power Russia has seems to be growing, never mind the wars they are all too happy to fight without acknowledging that a war is being waged.
You are right. War in Ukraine was started to kick out Shell out of natural gas field near to Sloviansk, which was able to fulfill needs of Ukraine and Europe, so Sloviansk was first target for Russian "insurgents".
AFAIK, the same reason holds for Syria: to stop Qatar attempt to reach Europe.
AFAIK, the same reason holds for Syria: to stop Qatar attempt to reach Europe.
It has, but fortunately since the oil price slump they haven't really been in a position to do this, because they need the revenue to keep their operations going.
Meanwhile Europe is diversifying its sources of fuels, so it seems that they will lose any ability to do that eventually.
Meanwhile Europe is diversifying its sources of fuels, so it seems that they will lose any ability to do that eventually.
Gas exports have been frequently used as leverage against transit countries, but not against destination countries. It wouldn't per se surprise me that it's just about cutting the middleman out (cf. nordstream).
> Historically Russia has been behaving aggressively and recklessly since at least 18th century
Two world wars happened since at least 20th century. Napoleonic before that.
Countries go to wars. Since forever. Aggressively and recklessly. Doesn't make agreements less important. A poor agreement is better than a good war, isn't it?
Two world wars happened since at least 20th century. Napoleonic before that.
Countries go to wars. Since forever. Aggressively and recklessly. Doesn't make agreements less important. A poor agreement is better than a good war, isn't it?
I'm not sure. I think poor agreements lead to more wars.
So was Sweden at the time...
I think your understanding of History is flawed at best.
I think your understanding of History is flawed at best.
> Historically Russia has been behaving aggressively and recklessly since at least 18th century, without much stop.
and historically, everyone surrounding russia has been trying to limit, constrain, or invade it (eastern crusades, crimean war, western sponsorship of lenin, etc).. what is your point?
and historically, everyone surrounding russia has been trying to limit, constrain, or invade it (eastern crusades, crimean war, western sponsorship of lenin, etc).. what is your point?
You're right. I came out a little strong. It complicates matters and gives the Russian government a stronger point of grievance, not without some legitimacy. I simultaneously don't think it's quite the Machiavellian dagger in back some are making it out to be.
Russia is always a schitzoid State because it’s not European and not Asian. It’s both and neither.
IMO, for all of the screwed up nature of the country, Russia is so big that it and it’s sphere of influence is always a threat to its neighbors.
If you are not an ethnic Russian, happen to live between the economic powerhouse of Western Europe and Russia, you probably want to affiliate with the strong economy of the West vs being a sort of vassal to Russia.
IMO, for all of the screwed up nature of the country, Russia is so big that it and it’s sphere of influence is always a threat to its neighbors.
If you are not an ethnic Russian, happen to live between the economic powerhouse of Western Europe and Russia, you probably want to affiliate with the strong economy of the West vs being a sort of vassal to Russia.
I'd say the problem is that it's too European - it held onto Medieval Europe's system of serfdom and highly centralized power far too long; the agricultural riches and later oil riches in Russia made modernization less interesting. One big revolution is no substitute for ten thousand small ones.
In size (population and moreso economy) it's now not that far ahead of Germany and has China and India as neighbors/near neighbors. I'd say it is adopting the psychology of the tough small guy.
In size (population and moreso economy) it's now not that far ahead of Germany and has China and India as neighbors/near neighbors. I'd say it is adopting the psychology of the tough small guy.
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.
Like Libya. Qaddafi dismantled his nuclear weapons programme and chemical weapons programme, cooperated with efforts to end nuclear proliferation down to exposing everyone who sold or otherwise helped and shared intelligence on terrorist threats and organisations. And in the end he died of being sodomised by bayonet after the US supported an uprising he would have easily crushed otherwise.
Kim was watching and so was every other dictator. You need nuclear weapons if you want security. The US can’t credibly commit to leave any power alone that’s not a client.
Kim was watching and so was every other dictator. You need nuclear weapons if you want security. The US can’t credibly commit to leave any power alone that’s not a client.
To be fair, there was a lot of tension there over how brutal exactly he was going to be in putting that rebellion down.
But yes, this is a huge problem. Once we convince someone to disarm, refusing to take force off the table completely undermines future efforts to disarm.
I often said throughout the 2000s that if with as much shit talk as the U.S. throws Hugo Chavez's way, if he's not either building nukes or hiring jihadis to teach his people guerilla warfare, he's stupid.
I harbored no love of Chavez but when your on the S list of a maurading superpower, you probably should have a plan B.
But yes, this is a huge problem. Once we convince someone to disarm, refusing to take force off the table completely undermines future efforts to disarm.
I often said throughout the 2000s that if with as much shit talk as the U.S. throws Hugo Chavez's way, if he's not either building nukes or hiring jihadis to teach his people guerilla warfare, he's stupid.
I harbored no love of Chavez but when your on the S list of a maurading superpower, you probably should have a plan B.
Fun thing is, Qaddafi was taken down mostly by Euro countries. US didn't care at first and stepped in relatively late in the game.
It was mostly European countries that wanted to do it. That doesn't mean they did it. Just googling "Libya no fly zone" looking at the headlines and dates will tell that story. It had to be a NATO operation so it needed active US support and it couldn't have gotten UN Security Council Resolution in support without the US.
Sure, but that doesn't change the messaging - nukes are good for defending national sovereignty.
The problem with this argument is that there is no particular "they" that lied here. George Bush (senior) negotiated these assurances and then, almost a decade later, Clinton reneged on them.
I think it is generally known that foreign relation promises not enshrined in formal treaties should not be expected to last across different administrations.
I think it is generally known that foreign relation promises not enshrined in formal treaties should not be expected to last across different administrations.
Another important distinction is that they made an assurance to the Soviet Union, not Russia.
The political situation in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet republics changed pretty substantially as well.
The political situation in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet republics changed pretty substantially as well.
+1. I fail to see how the NATO is in the 'wrong' here. They broke assurances in 1994 that they made to an entity which failed to exist after 1991. WUT?
Just Russia being Soviet Union successor when it's convenient and claiming to be a new state when it's not.
Russia yearns for the good old days.
Russia isn’t the Soviet Union, it was a part of the Soviet Union, and a member of the “Commonwealth of Independent States” that nominally succeeded it. My understanding is that treaties were reaffirmed with the individual states.
Does every non-binding commitment to be Soviet Union apply to Uzbekistan? Estonia? Georgia?
What about when the desires of Estonia conflict with the Soviets?
What about when the interests of the United States and other big NATO states conflict with the commitments to the various Post-Soviet states?
Russia isn’t the Soviet Union, it was a part of the Soviet Union, and a member of the “Commonwealth of Independent States” that nominally succeeded it. My understanding is that treaties were reaffirmed with the individual states.
Does every non-binding commitment to be Soviet Union apply to Uzbekistan? Estonia? Georgia?
What about when the desires of Estonia conflict with the Soviets?
What about when the interests of the United States and other big NATO states conflict with the commitments to the various Post-Soviet states?
Yet Russia took Soviet Union embassies. Even those that belonged to other countries before USSR annexed them. As well as grandfathered USSR seat in UN security council.
Kaliningrad was also given to Soviet Union Even though it was attached to Russian Federation to work around this. If Russia ain't Soviet Union successor, Kaliningrad should be no man's land or returned to Germany.
Talking about Estonia.. When Estonia tried to relocate USSR monument, it was Russia which objected.
Kaliningrad was also given to Soviet Union Even though it was attached to Russian Federation to work around this. If Russia ain't Soviet Union successor, Kaliningrad should be no man's land or returned to Germany.
Talking about Estonia.. When Estonia tried to relocate USSR monument, it was Russia which objected.
> Russia yearns for the good old days.
Russia picked up all the Soviet Union debt obligations. All those successor states have been essentially debt free on day one.
Russia picked up all the Soviet Union debt obligations. All those successor states have been essentially debt free on day one.
They _tricked_ others to take debt obligations for themselves. Since they took _all_ the Soviet properties as well.
That's _novel_ interpretation of that deal.
Yet, that's exactly what happened and you "conveniently" forgot to mention that Russia also took all the SU wealth and reserves. They even pulled back all of the weapons and military vehicles out of the ex-member countries, leaving them exposed and then started to help separatists in the wars against sovereign nations. Russia is shittiest neighbor of them all.
Can you provide an example of Russia denying Soviet Union's obligations when it was not convenient?
Accepting blame for Soviet occupation of Baltic states or Poland.
Accepting repercussions for Holodomor.
Soviet Union did not accept the blame for occupation of Baltic states so I don't see how it should be Russia's obligation.
Repercussions of Holodomor were deaths of millions of Soviet citizens in Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Belarus. What do you want Russia to accept here ?
Repercussions of Holodomor were deaths of millions of Soviet citizens in Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Belarus. What do you want Russia to accept here ?
Russia denies it's Soviet Union obligations whenever talks turn to paying reparations for Baltic States occupation or military actions in Czechoslovakia or Hungary.
Yet they love Soviet Union obligations when they don't return Lithuania's interwar embassy in Rome. Or when May 8/9 comes around :)
Yet they love Soviet Union obligations when they don't return Lithuania's interwar embassy in Rome. Or when May 8/9 comes around :)
> Soviet Union did not accept the blame for occupation of Baltic states so I don't see how it should be Russia's obligation.
USSR didn't accept 'Tsar's bonds' yet Russia payed them out.
So, yeah, double standards.
> What do you want Russia to accept here
Same as for praising 'Russian' victory over Germany, for example. Accept their involvement.
USSR didn't accept 'Tsar's bonds' yet Russia payed them out.
So, yeah, double standards.
> What do you want Russia to accept here
Same as for praising 'Russian' victory over Germany, for example. Accept their involvement.
Exactly, much of the eastward expansion of NATO was from parts of the Soviet Union joining NATO. If they didn't want NATO to expand eastward, then they shouldn't have joined it.
The problem is, that when Russia brought up those agreements pretty much everybody said "nu-uh, that did not happen, show me the agreements". When Russians mention that the agreement was verbal they are pretty much accused of lying. Now we have proof that the verbal agreement exists.
The problem is, agreement was made with Soviet Union and not with Russia.
it isn't a binding agreement if there is no treaty. I'm sure russia had some treaties saying don't invade georgia, but they did. The old soviet union gave Crimea to Ukraine and Russia took it back by force. That was part of another country.
Russia's violates treaties when it wants. It is not a trustworthy country. I think Russia is afraid of countries that want to be independent of the Russia's greater power.
Russia's violates treaties when it wants. It is not a trustworthy country. I think Russia is afraid of countries that want to be independent of the Russia's greater power.
If I tell my kid he can have a cookie in the afternoon but between then and now he eats a pound of cake, the cookie is coming off the table. If that makes me a liar then so be it. As the situation changes, I change my mind.
> the trust that was growing at that time and the hope we all began to take for granted
> my kid
You can't make this shit up.
> my kid
You can't make this shit up.
Well, that seems dismissive in a needlessly rude way. I agree that realpolitik drives a great many of the decisions of government and that the true motivations are often papered over with slogans and feel good messages. On the other hand, diplomats aren't all hard-bitten cynics. Many of them are very passionate about the areas of the world they help make policy around. The results are often a tension between the two.
I think by the mid nineties, a lot of people were very hopeful about the opening of Russia. Joining the Eastern block nations to NATO didn't have the same conotation it would have had in 1991 or today for that matter.
On this we disagree but we might agree on a lot actually. There seems no need to be snide.
I think by the mid nineties, a lot of people were very hopeful about the opening of Russia. Joining the Eastern block nations to NATO didn't have the same conotation it would have had in 1991 or today for that matter.
On this we disagree but we might agree on a lot actually. There seems no need to be snide.
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?
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?
They were thinking:
"Hm, these Russians haven't rooted out corruption and there is a decent chance that they'll backslide into an illiberal state. Best to take the countries that want democracy and peace while we still can."
Though I agree that Ukraine has led to a lot of trouble. Still probably worth it in the long run though.
"Hm, these Russians haven't rooted out corruption and there is a decent chance that they'll backslide into an illiberal state. Best to take the countries that want democracy and peace while we still can."
Though I agree that Ukraine has led to a lot of trouble. Still probably worth it in the long run though.
I wonder if this isn't a systemic problem with democracies and foreign policy. The new government simply doesn't care what commitments the previous one made. (See the Paris Agreement.) They often don't even care to find out what private commitments the previous government made. Of course other forms of government go back on their word, but it may be almost inevitable for democracies to do so, particularly to foreigners. Voters don't have "keeping our word with people who speak with funny accents" at the top of their agenda.
>The new government simply doesn't care what commitments the previous one made. (See the Paris Agreement.)
No, Trump is a real exception here. The US has traditionally honored treaties signed by past administrations, and even most private agreements. I am not saying it is perfect here, but no country is.
>Voters don't have "keeping our word with people who speak with funny accents" at the top of their agenda.
But the American foreign policy establishment has long made this a priority. And part of the reason is its members stay in positions of influence over many decades. And another is they realize that a nation will not get very far in the world over the long run if it doesn't keep its promises. And Trump has made it quite clear that he wants to overturn the Washington establishment in general, and this most definitely includes the foreign affairs establishment.
No, Trump is a real exception here. The US has traditionally honored treaties signed by past administrations, and even most private agreements. I am not saying it is perfect here, but no country is.
>Voters don't have "keeping our word with people who speak with funny accents" at the top of their agenda.
But the American foreign policy establishment has long made this a priority. And part of the reason is its members stay in positions of influence over many decades. And another is they realize that a nation will not get very far in the world over the long run if it doesn't keep its promises. And Trump has made it quite clear that he wants to overturn the Washington establishment in general, and this most definitely includes the foreign affairs establishment.
My first sentence should have been clearer - by commitments I specifically meant promises AS OPPOSED TO treaties. (The Paris Agreement wasn't a treaty, precisely because the U.S. insisted it not be one because the Republican Congress wouldn't swallow that.)
The foreign policy establishment can't contradict voters too directly, or rather are directed by a President chosen by them. Therefore U.S. has cheerfully reversed policy and commitments many times. Still, even the average voter understands something of the ancient holiness surrounding treaties, and the consequences of breaking those. (The ancient Greeks believed that the Gods would come down on you for breaking treaties since treaties were promises to those Gods.)
The foreign policy establishment can't contradict voters too directly, or rather are directed by a President chosen by them. Therefore U.S. has cheerfully reversed policy and commitments many times. Still, even the average voter understands something of the ancient holiness surrounding treaties, and the consequences of breaking those. (The ancient Greeks believed that the Gods would come down on you for breaking treaties since treaties were promises to those Gods.)
> Instead we decided to humiliate the Russians
By providing billions of dollars to them in humanitarian help, credits and jobs?
Humiliation, for sure.
By providing billions of dollars to them in humanitarian help, credits and jobs?
Humiliation, for sure.
> Whoever was making these policy decisions in the '90s -- What were they thinking?
I don't think Bill Clinton was generally thinking of much at all. He wasn't a terribly good executive, but was in fact a failed governor of a poor state who got doubly lucky: first, that he was the challenger during a recession; and second, that a third-party challenger siphoned votes for the incumbent.
Fortunately for America, clueless disinterest worked pretty well for eight years, allowing the Internet to take off. Unfortunately, cluelessness also set the scene for the geopolitical worlds of 2001 & 2003 …
I don't think Bill Clinton was generally thinking of much at all. He wasn't a terribly good executive, but was in fact a failed governor of a poor state who got doubly lucky: first, that he was the challenger during a recession; and second, that a third-party challenger siphoned votes for the incumbent.
Fortunately for America, clueless disinterest worked pretty well for eight years, allowing the Internet to take off. Unfortunately, cluelessness also set the scene for the geopolitical worlds of 2001 & 2003 …
> For what purpose did we go back on our word? ... so the two superpowers
why have 2 superpowers, when you can have one?
why have 2 superpowers, when you can have one?
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.
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.
But the UK and the US pushed and the states for obvious reasons feared Russia.
I, as ex-soviet sphere of influence country citizen, love NATO and consider it only way to fight Russian revisionist policies.
This so much. Greetings from Poland. Russia's cries about promises and "zones of influence" are basically cries about being unable to send tanks on a whim to a country which doesn't want to be a Russian colony.
Instead we let the US do as they please on our soil, and politely ask for visas promised to us 4 cadencies ago. All it takes is a radically anti-interventionist US president and we’re left to fend for ourselves against the angry Russians with our outdated F-16s. Germany has better ties with Russia than us.
Exactly, Russia is shitty neighbor here in Georgia too, supported separatists to create military bases and buffer zones to themselves. I am glad there is no more shitty SU and hope one they we will be in NATO to protect ourselves from whoever nutjob person Russian people decide to "elect" next in their mafia ruled country. I am also happy NATO still expands.
>I, as ex-soviet sphere of influence country citizen, love NATO
How could you not, especially after Ukraine...
How could you not, especially after Ukraine...
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.
And you assume these two countries would help the baltic States if a Russia fakes a Russian minority uprising?
Unfortunately I can't say I'm highly convinced. But being part of NATO means chances are much higher then if they only had some bilateral agreements. Even considering NATO (let's be honest) is not in a great shape.
Nato is the most powerful alliance in the world. Even without the US and Turkey, Russia wouldn't have a chance. France and Canada alone could probably stop a non-nuclear Russian offensive. Britain, Germany, Italy, all have military spending on peacetime levels of GDP. If the world heats up their economies could easily quadruple spending.
The only country that could strain Nato is China, and we're doing fine with China.
The only country that could strain Nato is China, and we're doing fine with China.
My point, was with a bilateral agreement perhaps the Russian public wouldn't be in the current imperialst craze and the danger of an "uprising" in the baltic states much smaller.
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.
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.
Not sure how "NATO with a bilateral agreement" would not have worked, perhaps I'm missing your points.
What would that bilateral agreement look like without the organisation just being a wing of NATO though?
The point I got from the GP is that Russia has a massive military force such that any large scale invasion would inevitably go nuclear because NATO is incapable of fielding the conventional force to counter it.
If the Eastern/Central European countries formed their own organisation, unless they could invoke NATO Article 5, how are they supposed to counter the size of the Russian military any more than NATO can?
A multilateral agreement which establishes relationships between the “Eastern Europe Treaty Organisation” and both sides seems like a better idea, but hindsight’s always 20/20 (and those states might not appreciate being treated as a buffer zone…).
The point I got from the GP is that Russia has a massive military force such that any large scale invasion would inevitably go nuclear because NATO is incapable of fielding the conventional force to counter it.
If the Eastern/Central European countries formed their own organisation, unless they could invoke NATO Article 5, how are they supposed to counter the size of the Russian military any more than NATO can?
A multilateral agreement which establishes relationships between the “Eastern Europe Treaty Organisation” and both sides seems like a better idea, but hindsight’s always 20/20 (and those states might not appreciate being treated as a buffer zone…).
You do know US is part of the NATO right? What makes you think US can't deploy 3-4 times more powerful conventional force to counter absolutely outdated Russian junk?
Putting aside that US troops have to get there, and might well be deployed elsewhere already…
Russian military active and reserve personnel: 3,490,000
USA military active and reserve personnel: 2,227,200
Russian military active and reserve personnel: 3,490,000
USA military active and reserve personnel: 2,227,200
By the early 80s it was clear that NATO outmatched the Warsaw Pact in conventional military strength. The Soviets developed the world’s mort capable anti-tank, anti-ship, and anti-air missiles.
Maybe in hindsight due to a certain perceived technological superiority, but that's far from clear and from the perspective of the 80s the Warsaw Pact was far superior in conventional force by numbers in Europe. See e.g. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/declassified_138256.htm?s...
Since then NATO countries in Europe has lowered their military capabilities quite a lot, haven't they?
All NATO countries in Europe currently increase their military spending a lot.
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.
First, let me say that I can totally understand your position and the Polish position in general. Russia is and has been (as Germany has been) an agressive imperialist country (I would wish Germany thanked Poland more for stopping the Russian march on Germany in 1921).
I can also understand your point as a country that had defence agreements and ended up occupied after WW2 while your defenders claimed victory.
But IMHO it accelerated (imperialist) Russia (again) on an agression path but more importantly weakend NATO, as NATO acceptance in core countries like France, the UK and Germany decreased. Acceptance of NATO in Germany is lower than ever, basically because NATO is seen as not committing to promises made and seen as an agressor in large parts of the population because of this (not my POV).
"a covert landgrab like the one that happened in Ukraine wouldn't be stopped."
NATO is so weakend right now and a shadow from the 1980s NATO that with a different government than the current conservative one, Germany will not commit to defend baltic states if Russia plays the Crimea Russian minority shenanigans. The current US government won't either.
In no way will NATO countries use nuclear weapons to defend baltic states compared to using nuclear weapons in the 80s.
I can also understand your point as a country that had defence agreements and ended up occupied after WW2 while your defenders claimed victory.
But IMHO it accelerated (imperialist) Russia (again) on an agression path but more importantly weakend NATO, as NATO acceptance in core countries like France, the UK and Germany decreased. Acceptance of NATO in Germany is lower than ever, basically because NATO is seen as not committing to promises made and seen as an agressor in large parts of the population because of this (not my POV).
"a covert landgrab like the one that happened in Ukraine wouldn't be stopped."
NATO is so weakend right now and a shadow from the 1980s NATO that with a different government than the current conservative one, Germany will not commit to defend baltic states if Russia plays the Crimea Russian minority shenanigans. The current US government won't either.
In no way will NATO countries use nuclear weapons to defend baltic states compared to using nuclear weapons in the 80s.
Germany allowing Poland to join NATO is a brilliant move on their part.
If NATO ended at the German border, and a conflict with Russia arose, the front of that war would be on German territory. Having a war fought within borders is devastating, and Germany knows that first-hand.
Allowing Poland means that if there is a serious border intrusion, the war will be fought in Poland's territory. Poland is western Europe's buffer against Russian expansion.
The question that remains is how hard and how far will Russia need to push before NATO responds with force.
We've already seen that Russia's expansion into Georgia resulted in nary a blip of a response. Annexation of Ukraine's territory was met with a louder response, but still nothing that would make Russia think twice.
Will an intrusion into one of the Baltic states cause the NATO mutual assurances to kick in? First, I hope we never get to find out. However, if it comes to that, I hope so. Unfortunately, history has shown that I should my hope is likely misplaced. Treaties, like other laws, can be amended, changed, or interpreted in creative ways when it suits the stronger party well.
If NATO ended at the German border, and a conflict with Russia arose, the front of that war would be on German territory. Having a war fought within borders is devastating, and Germany knows that first-hand.
Allowing Poland means that if there is a serious border intrusion, the war will be fought in Poland's territory. Poland is western Europe's buffer against Russian expansion.
The question that remains is how hard and how far will Russia need to push before NATO responds with force.
We've already seen that Russia's expansion into Georgia resulted in nary a blip of a response. Annexation of Ukraine's territory was met with a louder response, but still nothing that would make Russia think twice.
Will an intrusion into one of the Baltic states cause the NATO mutual assurances to kick in? First, I hope we never get to find out. However, if it comes to that, I hope so. Unfortunately, history has shown that I should my hope is likely misplaced. Treaties, like other laws, can be amended, changed, or interpreted in creative ways when it suits the stronger party well.
Good points I hadn't thought of.
"The question that remains is how hard and how far will Russia need to push before NATO responds with force."
Proably with Russian tanks in Poland.
But I don't think Poland is in danger, Russia already got most of what it wanted during/after WW2 from Poland.
The Baltic states in the current borders is something Russia doesn't want.
"However, if it comes to that, I hope so."
I hope so too, but I would bet on the other outcome.
"The question that remains is how hard and how far will Russia need to push before NATO responds with force."
Proably with Russian tanks in Poland.
But I don't think Poland is in danger, Russia already got most of what it wanted during/after WW2 from Poland.
The Baltic states in the current borders is something Russia doesn't want.
"However, if it comes to that, I hope so."
I hope so too, but I would bet on the other outcome.
Proably with Russian tanks in Poland
The Americans are not interested and the rest of NATO can't scrape together anything that could stop the Third Shock Army anymore. The UK can't even put a single armoured division into the field anymore. The NATO air patrol of the Baltic States isn't even a full fighter squadron.
If Russian tanks roll NATO will look the other way, because it has no choice. It won't change soon because of years of underinvestment that can't be made good overnight even if huge budgets were suddenly available. Which they aren't.
The Americans are not interested and the rest of NATO can't scrape together anything that could stop the Third Shock Army anymore. The UK can't even put a single armoured division into the field anymore. The NATO air patrol of the Baltic States isn't even a full fighter squadron.
If Russian tanks roll NATO will look the other way, because it has no choice. It won't change soon because of years of underinvestment that can't be made good overnight even if huge budgets were suddenly available. Which they aren't.
> If Russian tanks roll NATO will look the other way, because it has no choice. It won't change soon because of years of underinvestment that can't be made good overnight even if huge budgets were suddenly available. Which they aren't.
And solution is obvious: pay Ukraine for 1 thousand of tanks, out of 6 thousands they have in reserves, upgraded to latest tech: infrared optics, smart aim, built-in drone on wire, active defense, digital communication and control, etc. So NATO will have +1 thousand of high-tech tanks cheaply AND Ukraine will have +3 thousands of cheaper and less capable tanks, which is enough for defense (they still able to take out 2-3 Russian tanks when properly used in defense). Win-win for NATO and Ukraine.
In case of emergency, these tanks can be sent by railroad to any post-Warsaw block country at eastern border of NATO - they already have experience with them.
And solution is obvious: pay Ukraine for 1 thousand of tanks, out of 6 thousands they have in reserves, upgraded to latest tech: infrared optics, smart aim, built-in drone on wire, active defense, digital communication and control, etc. So NATO will have +1 thousand of high-tech tanks cheaply AND Ukraine will have +3 thousands of cheaper and less capable tanks, which is enough for defense (they still able to take out 2-3 Russian tanks when properly used in defense). Win-win for NATO and Ukraine.
In case of emergency, these tanks can be sent by railroad to any post-Warsaw block country at eastern border of NATO - they already have experience with them.
Even if all those things could be retrofitted - and they probably can't be for less time or money than just restarting the CR2 production line - you still need to recruit and train the crews. It takes years to produce a good tanker, and more years to make a good tank commander. And you also need to recruit and train and equip all the supporting arms too - tanks need a lot of logistics, engineers, mechanics, and all the rest. And even then, pure tank units aren't very effective, you need to also build up infantry, artillery to build combined formations... that is why I say even with vast budgets, it will take a long time.
Those things are already retrofitted. Ukraine already refurbishes old tanks and sells them to other countries, e.g. Thailand, under «Oplot» brand to fund line of 8x cheaper «Bulat» tanks for their own army.
Eastern Europe has much lower salary, so USA and Western Europe can fund 3-4x larger army using their soldiers. War simulators are proven to be very effective to train crews and commanders. I, personally, use «Hetman: War Stories» for Arma3 to improve my skills, with all helpers turned off, with weakest army against strongest at highest AI level. 1 life and no saves makes me wet and exhausted like real combat because of high price of error.
Of course, this is only one piece of defense, but important one. And, of course, local lobbies will try to steer money to their own defense projects, so such decision must be done at NATO or EU level.
Eastern Europe has much lower salary, so USA and Western Europe can fund 3-4x larger army using their soldiers. War simulators are proven to be very effective to train crews and commanders. I, personally, use «Hetman: War Stories» for Arma3 to improve my skills, with all helpers turned off, with weakest army against strongest at highest AI level. 1 life and no saves makes me wet and exhausted like real combat because of high price of error.
Of course, this is only one piece of defense, but important one. And, of course, local lobbies will try to steer money to their own defense projects, so such decision must be done at NATO or EU level.
Maybe the the current state of NATO and Brexit will finally kick the EU into creating a military force.
The Americans are not interested ... If Russian tanks roll NATO will look the other way, because it has no choice.
This is why the US has forces deployed in Poland and Estonia[1]. They are there to die, just like the US forces in Berlin were.
In the cruel calculus of war these soldiers have to die to make sure US public opinion supports US intervention.
I'm not sure, but I think NATO doctrine is sill to go tactical nuclear if the tanks roll.
[1] https://www.army.mil/article/194380/
This is why the US has forces deployed in Poland and Estonia[1]. They are there to die, just like the US forces in Berlin were.
In the cruel calculus of war these soldiers have to die to make sure US public opinion supports US intervention.
I'm not sure, but I think NATO doctrine is sill to go tactical nuclear if the tanks roll.
[1] https://www.army.mil/article/194380/
The NATO alliance isn't the US. Canada leads the battlegroup in Latvia, with contributions by Albania, Italy, Poland, Slovenia and Spain. Germany leads the battlegroup in Lithuania, with contributions by Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Norway. The United Kingdom leads the battlegroup in Estonia, with contributions by France. The United States leads the battlegroup in Poland, with contributions by Romania and the UK.
I think you are missing the point.
The current US president has regularly made speeches which indicate his support for NATO is less than whole hearted.
This discussion is about what would make sure the US did live up to their treaty obligations.
The current US president has regularly made speeches which indicate his support for NATO is less than whole hearted.
This discussion is about what would make sure the US did live up to their treaty obligations.
The UK also has a battalion in Estonia - but the Russians can field as many tanks as the UK has individual soldiers there. They will be a "speed bump", nothing more.
There is a novel by a former senior UK general and deputy NATO leader that covers this scenario:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/former-nato-c...
Not a great novel but mildly interesting.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/former-nato-c...
Not a great novel but mildly interesting.
Not a speed bump, a trip wire.
Triggering what? It's not like the UK has the capability - every "strategic defence review" is just cut, cut, cut. Challenger2, AS90, cut to the bone. Typhoon is barely capable of air-to-ground and the Tornado fleet is rapidly approaching end of life. The Type 45s fitted "for but not with" their major weapons. Carriers without anything to carry.
NATO cannot defend the Baltic States, and if push comes to shove, it won't even try.
NATO cannot defend the Baltic States, and if push comes to shove, it won't even try.
As far as I know the plan against a Russian tank rush now is the same as it was when it was the Fulda Gap[1] they were protecting: tactical nukes.
And I think you underestimate NATO power and overestimate Russian. Russia does have a lot of tanks, but the vast majority of them are T-72s and older[2], which are sitting ducks for modern shoulder-launched anti-tank missiles.
Despite that, they do have a lot of T-90s, which are a good tank. But the disparity isn't as high as a first glance makes it appear, and NATO does have better air forces (the F-16 isn't as obsolete as you seem to think).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulda_Gap
[2] https://www.quora.com/Why-does-Russia-have-so-many-tanks-com...
And I think you underestimate NATO power and overestimate Russian. Russia does have a lot of tanks, but the vast majority of them are T-72s and older[2], which are sitting ducks for modern shoulder-launched anti-tank missiles.
Despite that, they do have a lot of T-90s, which are a good tank. But the disparity isn't as high as a first glance makes it appear, and NATO does have better air forces (the F-16 isn't as obsolete as you seem to think).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulda_Gap
[2] https://www.quora.com/Why-does-Russia-have-so-many-tanks-com...
the plan against a Russian tank rush now is the same as it was when it was the Fulda Gap[1] they were protecting: tactical nukes
But the WE.177 was also cut... we have no tactical nukes anymore. And it's not clear that the Baltics would rather be nuked than occupied either!
But the WE.177 was also cut... we have no tactical nukes anymore. And it's not clear that the Baltics would rather be nuked than occupied either!
Nuclear strike is a topic for itself since I think nobody will use it but:
> Germany will not commit to defend baltic states if Russia plays the Crimea Russian minority shenanigans.
...is a weird statement. Where do you get this from? Besides the fact that "Germany" would never do anything by themselves, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't hesitate to join an European/NATO force to defend those countries. The "shock" here wouldn't be even half as hard as it was before Yugoslavia broke apart and Germany had to send soldiers into war again. Today there is not even a relevant party in the german parliament that could theoretically stop that involvement.
I'm pretty sure some in Russia want to believe that Germany wouldn't join Europe/NATO since Russia is in fact the weak party here but I don't believe Putin is that naive.
> Germany will not commit to defend baltic states if Russia plays the Crimea Russian minority shenanigans.
...is a weird statement. Where do you get this from? Besides the fact that "Germany" would never do anything by themselves, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't hesitate to join an European/NATO force to defend those countries. The "shock" here wouldn't be even half as hard as it was before Yugoslavia broke apart and Germany had to send soldiers into war again. Today there is not even a relevant party in the german parliament that could theoretically stop that involvement.
I'm pretty sure some in Russia want to believe that Germany wouldn't join Europe/NATO since Russia is in fact the weak party here but I don't believe Putin is that naive.
As a German reading the German press I think any government except the current conservative one would wiggle out of any NATO operation in the baltic states.
Support for the Yugoslavia effort was mainly based on the genocide there and some people felt some obligation because of the holocaust and German war crimes in Yugoslavia during WW2. It's exactly the opposite with Russia. Contrary to every evidence Russia is seen as a victim by large parts of the population.
"Russia is in fact the weak party"
With Crimea, South Ossetia, Abkhazia etc. etc. Russia doesn't look like the weak party to me.
Support for the Yugoslavia effort was mainly based on the genocide there and some people felt some obligation because of the holocaust and German war crimes in Yugoslavia during WW2. It's exactly the opposite with Russia. Contrary to every evidence Russia is seen as a victim by large parts of the population.
"Russia is in fact the weak party"
With Crimea, South Ossetia, Abkhazia etc. etc. Russia doesn't look like the weak party to me.
I live in Germany too but I still fail to see where you get your assessment from. What are those "other" governments you are talking about? AfD and die Linke coalition? Because they are the only ones who have problems with NATO and love Russia. Both are far away from being even considered seriously in day to day business and their ties to Russia are a topic for itself.
> Contrary to every evidence Russia is seen as a victim by large parts of the population.
Do you seriously believe Russia would be seen as a victim when it invades another country? Seriously? By whom? AfD? And how would that new invasion look like to you? People welcoming the Russian Freedomfighters? Do you thing there would be no dead people there?!
And why should it be seen positively when the invasion in Ukraine has not been seen positively while the sanctions against Russia are seen positively: https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/292793/umfrag... even though Germany is among those who are hurt by those sanctions.
> With Crimea, South Ossetia, Abkhazia etc. etc. Russia doesn't look like the weak party to me.
Please don't kid yourself. Most people here don't even know where this is and their illegal involvement in Ukraine made them the evil guy for a long time. It did not help them at all and it doesn't help your point at all.
I really wonder where you come from. AfD, Linke, Querfront?
> Contrary to every evidence Russia is seen as a victim by large parts of the population.
Do you seriously believe Russia would be seen as a victim when it invades another country? Seriously? By whom? AfD? And how would that new invasion look like to you? People welcoming the Russian Freedomfighters? Do you thing there would be no dead people there?!
And why should it be seen positively when the invasion in Ukraine has not been seen positively while the sanctions against Russia are seen positively: https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/292793/umfrag... even though Germany is among those who are hurt by those sanctions.
> With Crimea, South Ossetia, Abkhazia etc. etc. Russia doesn't look like the weak party to me.
Please don't kid yourself. Most people here don't even know where this is and their illegal involvement in Ukraine made them the evil guy for a long time. It did not help them at all and it doesn't help your point at all.
I really wonder where you come from. AfD, Linke, Querfront?
I think any government of SPD and Greens will wiggle out. Obvously any government with the communists (Linke). Don't think a government with AfD will happen soon or ever.
"Please don't kid yourself. Most people don't even know where this is and their illegal involvement in Ukraine made them the evil guy for a long time. It did not help them at all and it doesn't help your point at all."
After rereading this, I still can't follow your point.
"Do you seriously believe Russia would be seen as a victim when it invades another country? Seriously? By whom? AfD?"
If Russia plays the Russian-minority-we-have-nothing-to-do-with-it-Crimea-shenanigans with the baltic state, yes.
Russia is seen as the victim of the Ukraine crisis.
50% of SPD members/voters - more if it's left dominated as it currenty is compared to a Schmidt/Schroeder/Brand rightist dominated SPD - 50% of Green members/voters - less if Realos dominate like Fisher, but the Greens are currently dominated by Fundi positions - 100% of Linke voters of course, no clue about AfD.
Just read [1] for example, 39% of people in Germany think Germany should accept Crimea as part of Russia. In a government without the conservatives that position would have the majority.
Or here [2], majority of people in France (53), Italy (51) and Germany (58) would not defend an eastern NATO country attaked by Russia.
[1] http://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2014-11/deutsche-umfr...
[2] http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ausland/umfrage-zur-ukrai...
"Please don't kid yourself. Most people don't even know where this is and their illegal involvement in Ukraine made them the evil guy for a long time. It did not help them at all and it doesn't help your point at all."
After rereading this, I still can't follow your point.
"Do you seriously believe Russia would be seen as a victim when it invades another country? Seriously? By whom? AfD?"
If Russia plays the Russian-minority-we-have-nothing-to-do-with-it-Crimea-shenanigans with the baltic state, yes.
Russia is seen as the victim of the Ukraine crisis.
50% of SPD members/voters - more if it's left dominated as it currenty is compared to a Schmidt/Schroeder/Brand rightist dominated SPD - 50% of Green members/voters - less if Realos dominate like Fisher, but the Greens are currently dominated by Fundi positions - 100% of Linke voters of course, no clue about AfD.
Just read [1] for example, 39% of people in Germany think Germany should accept Crimea as part of Russia. In a government without the conservatives that position would have the majority.
Or here [2], majority of people in France (53), Italy (51) and Germany (58) would not defend an eastern NATO country attaked by Russia.
[1] http://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2014-11/deutsche-umfr...
[2] http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ausland/umfrage-zur-ukrai...
> I think any government of SPD and Greens will wiggle out.
What is this supposed to be based on? SPD and Greens were those who sent troops to Yugoslavia and the Greens had some values back then. Here is a statement by them supporting the sanctions: https://www.gruene-bundestag.de/presse/audiovideo/statement-...
Besides that, both SPD and Grüne and SPD and Linke are far away from forming a government without CDU. Not even mentioning that SPD doesn't even take Linke serious.
> If Russia plays the Russian-minority-we-have-nothing-to-do-with-it-Crimea-shenanigans with the baltic state, yes.
This didn't even work out in the Ukraine. They are still losing big money there every day and they are stuck just like in those other regions at the end of the world you've mentioned as signs of strength.
> Russia is seen as the victim of the Ukraine crisis. 50% of SPD members/voters -....
Where do you get this from? Why not provide source for this? Instead you come with a 2014 source on Crimea.
Adding to my Russia is weak and support for Russia is low even though Germany suffers from the sanctions: http://www.rp-online.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/russland-sank... Pay attention to the third last paragraph:
> Die restlichen 91 Prozent kämen zustande, weil keine Finanzierungsmöglichkeiten in Russland mehr für den Import bereitstünden.
@your Ninja Edit [2]:
> Gleichzeitig äußern große Mehrheiten – in der Regel zwei Drittel und mehr – die Erwartung, die Vereinigten Staaten würden militärische Gewalt anwenden, um das bedrängte Land zu verteidigen.
So short of half of the people don't want to go to war but most expect the US to do it for them. You would have to twist this like hell to interpret that those people support Russia in any way. Further down there is a 23% support for Putin in Germany. Which contradicts your assumptions above and covers pretty much the radical left and right party voters/members. They are by far no majority and this is already the highest number in the EU.
What is this supposed to be based on? SPD and Greens were those who sent troops to Yugoslavia and the Greens had some values back then. Here is a statement by them supporting the sanctions: https://www.gruene-bundestag.de/presse/audiovideo/statement-...
Besides that, both SPD and Grüne and SPD and Linke are far away from forming a government without CDU. Not even mentioning that SPD doesn't even take Linke serious.
> If Russia plays the Russian-minority-we-have-nothing-to-do-with-it-Crimea-shenanigans with the baltic state, yes.
This didn't even work out in the Ukraine. They are still losing big money there every day and they are stuck just like in those other regions at the end of the world you've mentioned as signs of strength.
> Russia is seen as the victim of the Ukraine crisis. 50% of SPD members/voters -....
Where do you get this from? Why not provide source for this? Instead you come with a 2014 source on Crimea.
Adding to my Russia is weak and support for Russia is low even though Germany suffers from the sanctions: http://www.rp-online.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/russland-sank... Pay attention to the third last paragraph:
> Die restlichen 91 Prozent kämen zustande, weil keine Finanzierungsmöglichkeiten in Russland mehr für den Import bereitstünden.
@your Ninja Edit [2]:
> Gleichzeitig äußern große Mehrheiten – in der Regel zwei Drittel und mehr – die Erwartung, die Vereinigten Staaten würden militärische Gewalt anwenden, um das bedrängte Land zu verteidigen.
So short of half of the people don't want to go to war but most expect the US to do it for them. You would have to twist this like hell to interpret that those people support Russia in any way. Further down there is a 23% support for Putin in Germany. Which contradicts your assumptions above and covers pretty much the radical left and right party voters/members. They are by far no majority and this is already the highest number in the EU.
"SPD and Greens were those who sent troops to Yugoslavia"
Both the SPD (Schroeder) and Greens (Fischer) where right dominated past then. Both parties are left dominated now.
"Here is a statement by them supporting the sanctions"
I thought we were talking about the NATO case in Germany when NATO is attacked by Russia, not sanctions.
The quoted article states 58% of Germans would not support Germany defending east European states when being attacked by Russia. 58% looks like a majority of people to me.
"They are still losing big money there every day and they are stuck just like in those other regions at the end of the world you've mentioned as signs of strength."
Repeattly annexing parts out of other countries without a military response looks like a sign of strengh to me.
"Besides that, both SPD and Grüne and SPD and Linke are far away from forming a government without CDU."
Why are you not providing a source for that?
"They are still losing big money"
Why are you not providing a source for that?
"Greens had some values back then."
Why are you not providing a source for that?
"above and covers pretty much the radical left and right party voters/members. "
Why are you not providing a source for that?
Stupid game, isn't it?
Both the SPD (Schroeder) and Greens (Fischer) where right dominated past then. Both parties are left dominated now.
"Here is a statement by them supporting the sanctions"
I thought we were talking about the NATO case in Germany when NATO is attacked by Russia, not sanctions.
The quoted article states 58% of Germans would not support Germany defending east European states when being attacked by Russia. 58% looks like a majority of people to me.
"They are still losing big money there every day and they are stuck just like in those other regions at the end of the world you've mentioned as signs of strength."
Repeattly annexing parts out of other countries without a military response looks like a sign of strengh to me.
"Besides that, both SPD and Grüne and SPD and Linke are far away from forming a government without CDU."
Why are you not providing a source for that?
"They are still losing big money"
Why are you not providing a source for that?
"Greens had some values back then."
Why are you not providing a source for that?
"above and covers pretty much the radical left and right party voters/members. "
Why are you not providing a source for that?
Stupid game, isn't it?
> Both the SPD (Schroeder) and Greens (Fischer) where right dominated past then. Both parties are left dominated now.
What?! :D This is by far the most ridiculous thing I've heard yet in this topic. Why are you doing that? To confuse all those non-Germans here? What a nasty strategy. Both did come to power BECAUSE OF THEIR LEFT ATTITUDE and to remove the right attitude.
> I thought we were talking about the NATO case in Germany when NATO is attacked by Russia, not sanctions.
You brought that myth of Germans supporting Russia and looking away when a country is invaded by Russia. Now you want to distance yourself from it?
> The quoted article states 58% of Germans would not support Germany defending east European states when being attacked by Russia. 58% looks like a majority of people to me.
I have already quoted and answered that based on your own source which says that they don't want to go themselfes but expect the US to do it for them. This also not in a marginal amount but 2/3rd and more according to your own source.
What are you trying there? Are you being paid for this?
> Repeattly annexing parts out of other countries without a military response looks like a sign of strengh to me.
Nobody even knows where this is. It's far away from Europe. Therefore of course nobody would send soldiers from Germany there. However on the topic here, we are talking about Estonia, Poland etc. People would do care about those if Russia would invade them. And those invasions would not be as cheap as ripping of parts of some backwater countries at the end of the world.
I've written that above twice. You are obviously trying to tire me out here.
> Why are you not providing a source for that?
No you play dump? I thought you are reading "newspapers", did you miss the recent election results or what was going on since then? Let me help your well informed background out: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=election+results+germany+2017
> Why are you not providing a source for that?
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/vladimir-ryzhkov/syria-cost-r...
Also first result in google.
> "Greens had some values back then."
Do you now want to pretend that you missed what comulated in the most famous Farbbeutel attack? Is this what is left of your strategy? Ignoring key events in German history, ignoring recent election results, playing dump?
I'll bite. Here is the speech that came after it http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/wortlaut-auszuege-...
> "above and covers pretty much the radical left and right party voters/members. "
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/bundestagswahl-die-afd-pa...
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/afd-verteidigt-put...
http://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/die-linke-und-russland-wa...
https://www.mdr.de/nachrichten/politik/inland/linke-gegen-ru...
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/linkspartei-in-der...
All very well known to even half good informed "newspaper reader". Not to you? How come? Maybe we should get back to you: where are you coming from? What are those newspapers that let you miss all those key events and facts while leading you to this Russia Today standpoint on Russia?
What?! :D This is by far the most ridiculous thing I've heard yet in this topic. Why are you doing that? To confuse all those non-Germans here? What a nasty strategy. Both did come to power BECAUSE OF THEIR LEFT ATTITUDE and to remove the right attitude.
> I thought we were talking about the NATO case in Germany when NATO is attacked by Russia, not sanctions.
You brought that myth of Germans supporting Russia and looking away when a country is invaded by Russia. Now you want to distance yourself from it?
> The quoted article states 58% of Germans would not support Germany defending east European states when being attacked by Russia. 58% looks like a majority of people to me.
I have already quoted and answered that based on your own source which says that they don't want to go themselfes but expect the US to do it for them. This also not in a marginal amount but 2/3rd and more according to your own source.
What are you trying there? Are you being paid for this?
> Repeattly annexing parts out of other countries without a military response looks like a sign of strengh to me.
Nobody even knows where this is. It's far away from Europe. Therefore of course nobody would send soldiers from Germany there. However on the topic here, we are talking about Estonia, Poland etc. People would do care about those if Russia would invade them. And those invasions would not be as cheap as ripping of parts of some backwater countries at the end of the world.
I've written that above twice. You are obviously trying to tire me out here.
> Why are you not providing a source for that?
No you play dump? I thought you are reading "newspapers", did you miss the recent election results or what was going on since then? Let me help your well informed background out: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=election+results+germany+2017
> Why are you not providing a source for that?
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/vladimir-ryzhkov/syria-cost-r...
Also first result in google.
> "Greens had some values back then."
Do you now want to pretend that you missed what comulated in the most famous Farbbeutel attack? Is this what is left of your strategy? Ignoring key events in German history, ignoring recent election results, playing dump?
I'll bite. Here is the speech that came after it http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/wortlaut-auszuege-...
> "above and covers pretty much the radical left and right party voters/members. "
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/bundestagswahl-die-afd-pa...
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/afd-verteidigt-put...
http://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/die-linke-und-russland-wa...
https://www.mdr.de/nachrichten/politik/inland/linke-gegen-ru...
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/linkspartei-in-der...
All very well known to even half good informed "newspaper reader". Not to you? How come? Maybe we should get back to you: where are you coming from? What are those newspapers that let you miss all those key events and facts while leading you to this Russia Today standpoint on Russia?
We ban accounts that cross into incivility in arguments like this. If you want to keep posting here, please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and take both the spirit and the letter of the rules to heart. This is necessary to preserve the container for discussion that we all benefit from.
> Support for the Yugoslavia effort was mainly based on the genocide there and some people felt some obligation because of the holocaust and German war crimes in Yugoslavia during WW2.
The breakaway Yugoslav republics Croatia & Slovenia were recognised first by Vatican & then by Germany. At that point, no fighting has started. It could be argued that their recognition ignited the conflict.
A good comparison would be if Vatican & Germany recognised Catalonia and started to arm them.
> It's exactly the opposite with Russia.
Well, NATO bombed Yugoslavia, in 1999. under the made up charges of ethnic cleansing, but it was only after the NATO offensive started, that the people started to migrate, to avoid the conflict.
An interesting fact to consider is that the bunkers built during the Hitler's German occupation of Serbia were staffed by German soldiers, in their first military action after the WW2.
Comparisons with Russia are not applicable in this case.
The breakaway Yugoslav republics Croatia & Slovenia were recognised first by Vatican & then by Germany. At that point, no fighting has started. It could be argued that their recognition ignited the conflict.
A good comparison would be if Vatican & Germany recognised Catalonia and started to arm them.
> It's exactly the opposite with Russia.
Well, NATO bombed Yugoslavia, in 1999. under the made up charges of ethnic cleansing, but it was only after the NATO offensive started, that the people started to migrate, to avoid the conflict.
An interesting fact to consider is that the bunkers built during the Hitler's German occupation of Serbia were staffed by German soldiers, in their first military action after the WW2.
Comparisons with Russia are not applicable in this case.
[deleted]
> But IMHO it accelerated (imperialist) Russia (again) on an agression path
Yeah, we have heard that before. This is always said in such circumstances (if only Poland agreed to exterritorial corridor, Germany would not attack it).
Yeah, we have heard that before. This is always said in such circumstances (if only Poland agreed to exterritorial corridor, Germany would not attack it).
No but it increased Putins popularity and crushed all internal opposition towards an imperialist Russia.
I also carefully used the word accelerated [1] which you might have missed.
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accelerate
I also carefully used the word accelerated [1] which you might have missed.
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accelerate
aluhut(3)
> 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.
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.
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.
+1 for theyscrewedup.com.
Guess who is first on my list. :D
Guess who is first on my list. :D
[deleted]
Maybe they meant the 1918-1945 East German Border (i.e. Königsberg = today's Russian Kaliningrad and Breslau = Polish Wroclaw)? /s
Edit: AFAIK there is no de iure annexation of those territories
Edit: AFAIK there is no de iure annexation of those territories
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.
> Edit: AFAIK there is no de iure annexation of those territories
You know wrong, this issue was settled in the 2+4 treaty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Final_Settlement...
You know wrong, this issue was settled in the 2+4 treaty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Final_Settlement...
Yeah yeah and Germany is a GmbH...
Sadly, I know people that believe this crap, one of those Reichsbürger.
But there is a Bundesrepublik Deutschland GmbH ;) (see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundesrepublik_Deutschland_%E2...)
Yeah but it only exists since 1990.
Then again, I might be applying to much logic.
Then again, I might be applying to much logic.
it exists since 2000 and it's a fully owned company of the government. I was being sarcastic and you're applying too much logic. Nothing about the Reichsbürger movement can be described with what we'd consider logic.
Another thing Reichsburgers and love have in common!
We are the federation, we come in peace. We just want to trade.
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!
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine#Bu...
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine#Bu...
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".
I don't agree. Polish Government is under attack by the western propaganda because it finally wants to remove the post-colonialism which started after Communism collapsed. How would you explain that food prices are almost same in Tesco or Lidl in Germany and in Poland but a Polish cashier earns £400 a month and a German one £1200?
Ask the union that negotiates the wages on behalf of polish cashier? It's not like the wages in Germany magically started rising or Lidl is well known for philanthropy in Germany. The unions went on strike for the wages and still do. It's money hard fought for.
In any case, I don't think this is something you can blame on "the EU", as many people do. Many many Poles do use the benefits of the EU (just as others do, and rightfully so), either by having infrastructure built (look at the whole transit road from Warsaw down to Bialystock, the A1, ... tons of EU funds went into that) or by using the EU rules to work abroad with little to no friction (just have a short peek at the number plates that travel along the A1 now for christmas, you'll see lots and lots from all EU countries). It's certainly not all good in the EU, but what the polish government currently does - blaming all problems on the evil EU while claiming all benefits for the great polish government - is certainly a recipe to alienate friends and supporters.
In any case, I don't think this is something you can blame on "the EU", as many people do. Many many Poles do use the benefits of the EU (just as others do, and rightfully so), either by having infrastructure built (look at the whole transit road from Warsaw down to Bialystock, the A1, ... tons of EU funds went into that) or by using the EU rules to work abroad with little to no friction (just have a short peek at the number plates that travel along the A1 now for christmas, you'll see lots and lots from all EU countries). It's certainly not all good in the EU, but what the polish government currently does - blaming all problems on the evil EU while claiming all benefits for the great polish government - is certainly a recipe to alienate friends and supporters.
If you shut down whole industries so unemployment rate is 25% people are scared of organizing strikes.
Then suddenly foreign capital comes, re-opens shut down companies and magic happens - it wasn't worth to shut it down, Polish people can just work as hard as foreign, but they are just scared of striking.
Then suddenly foreign capital comes, re-opens shut down companies and magic happens - it wasn't worth to shut it down, Polish people can just work as hard as foreign, but they are just scared of striking.
It's not foreigners' fault that salaries in Poland are low. And shaking fists at powerful neighbors is counter-productive.
If this company is owned by foreign capital it is and this is called post-colonialism and it happens in Europe as well. Standard foreign citizens have nothing to do with this, just the politicians.
It will be by same people who organized Targowica in the 18th century 'helping' Polish people by giving up Polish Land to Prussia, Russia and Austria!
Didn't the exact reverse of this happen in Ukraine? It was "liberated from corrupt government" by the "West"?
mk3(6)
I hope someone from the admin team is taking a close look at this comment section here. I would really love to see some background.
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)
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 don't mean the article. I don't see anything wrong there. However what happened in this comment section within minutes/few hours was very interesting. I haven't seen anything like that since I'm on this board.
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.
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.
This comment section is dragging in some reeealy weird comments. I've seen some of them even disappear (deleted by mods?) which is something I haven't seen here in such a drastic way and short time.
I would love to see if this is some directed action. Few people? Links leading to here, etc.
I would love to see if this is some directed action. Few people? Links leading to here, etc.
Not sure what you mean by 'disappear'. Moderators did routine moderation in this thread, much as we do in any other, especially 'hot' ones. I don't see signs that the users who participated were doing so on false premises. When we do see such things, e.g. users replying to themselves with other accounts to skew discussion, we ban them.
We do sometimes mark subthreads to be auto-collapsed, usually when there's something about them that is too far outside the scope of the site. That can be because they're off-topic, but also if they're off-spirit, so to speak, in the sense that the spirit of intellectual curiosity is too absent. When that happens, nastier spirits move in, so moderation is needed.
We do sometimes mark subthreads to be auto-collapsed, usually when there's something about them that is too far outside the scope of the site. That can be because they're off-topic, but also if they're off-spirit, so to speak, in the sense that the spirit of intellectual curiosity is too absent. When that happens, nastier spirits move in, so moderation is needed.
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.