Ukraine: Ongoing…

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

56 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

"Heavily disputed" by whom? Alex Jones? Mickey Mouse?

That's just the most famous line. Cold War historians can tell you there are many documents that show that NATO not expanding eastward was a pretty explicit condition for the Soviet Union facilitating the reunification of Germany. I'd found a couple of such documents myself back in the day, but I'm too lazy to go through my old research, and this page lists a number of such documents: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early

On the other hand, there was in fact a deliberate effort to deny this ever happened in order to whitewash the US's Russian policy after 1992, most notably by Mark Kramer. But Kramer's arguments are just plain dumb. Anyone reading these documents with some knowledge of the historical context knows what they mean, and if you want someone with actual historical credence, just look to Jack Matlock, who knows what he's talking about.

Of course, the context makes the whole thing almost laughable. At the time it was a given that the Soviets didn't want NATO to expand, but the West was worried NATO could crumble, and the Soviets were not closed to the idea of joining NATO themselves! So the whole point is almost moot. The question is really about the US's Russian policy after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and to some extent, whether depriving Russia of Crimea became a secondary objective of the US strategy, as had been advocated in the 1980s.

Please present the signed ratified agreement between NATO and the Russian Federation (not the Soviet Union Gorbachev never held any position within the Russian Federation… did he) wherein NATO agreed it wouldn’t expand Eastward.  

We’ll wait.  

… or… 

Is it really your contention that a casual comment by James Baker really has the power to formally legally bind the NATO alliance as though a treaty existed between it and a Nation-State that no longer exists?

Edited April 12, 2023 by Ser Scot A Ellison

[SeanF]

56 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

"Heavily disputed" by whom? Alex Jones? Mickey Mouse?

That's just the most famous line. Cold War historians can tell you there are many documents that show that NATO not expanding eastward was a pretty explicit condition for the Soviet Union facilitating the reunification of Germany. I'd found a couple of such documents myself back in the day, but I'm too lazy to go through my old research, and this page lists a number of such documents: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early

On the other hand, there was in fact a deliberate effort to deny this ever happened in order to whitewash the US's Russian policy after 1992, most notably by Mark Kramer. But Kramer's arguments are just plain dumb. Anyone reading these documents with some knowledge of the historical context knows what they mean, and if you want someone with actual historical credence, just look to Jack Matlock, who knows what he's talking about.

Of course, the context makes the whole thing almost laughable. At the time it was a given that the Soviets didn't want NATO to expand, but the West was worried NATO could crumble, and the Soviets were not closed to the idea of joining NATO themselves! So the whole point is almost moot. The question is really about the US's Russian policy after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and to some extent, whether depriving Russia of Crimea became a secondary objective of the US strategy, as had been advocated in the 1980s.

A backroom comment is binding upon no country

It looks to me as though Eastern European nations had good reason to fear Russia, and that joining NATO was the prudent course for them to pursue.

[Celestial]

11 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Please present the signed ratified agreement between NATO and the Russian Federation (not the Soviet Union Gorbachov never held any position within the Russian Federation… did he) wherein NATO agreed it wouldn’t expand Eastward.  

We’ll wait.  

… or… 

Is it really your contention that a casual comment by James Baker really has the power to formally legally bind the NATO alliance as though a treaty existed between it and a Nation-State that no longer exists?

Rippounet's argument is a load of nonsense. If Russia's concern was only abut military security ("Russian security interests", in Moscow's parlance), they could have tried to solve this problem on their own, by trying to improve their relationships with the former Warsaw Pact countries and showing genuine contrition about their past misdeeds. Poland and the Baltics were probably beyond the reach of any such attempts, but other countries like Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia, Croatia, could have had second thoughts about joining NATO if Russia tried to make amends.

For instance, in regard to Romania, Russia could have apologized for the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and the annexation of the Romanian province of Bassarabia (current Republic of Moldova) in 1812 and, again, in 1940. It could have also showed its support for the cancellation of the effect of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and for the reunification of Moldova with Romania. They could have also given back the Romanian treasury sent in Russia for safekeeping during WW1 and confiscated by Lenin. If Russia did that, there is a good chance Romania would not have sought NATO admittance. So, what did Russia do? Instigated a separatist movement in Transnistria (a part of Rep. Moldova) which they used to destabilize Moldova, kept this threat hanging until today, kept asserting they were right to annex Bassarabia (Moldova) and always reacted aggressively when the possibility of reunification was mentioned by unionist politicians (with the occasional threat to bomb NATO installations in Romania).

I mention Romania because Russia had a very enticing carrot to offer (not standing in the way of a reunification between Moldova and Romania), which would have cost them nothing economically. Yet, Russia kept behaving arrogantly and aggressively on this issue.

The same is true about the other countries. Has Russia ever tried to apologize to Hungary for 1956, to Czecholovakia for 1968 and for the years of occupation? No.

Russia has tried to prevent NATO expansion by pressuring the leading NATO countries, in particular the United States. But Russia never tried to persuade the countries seeking admittance, it never even tried to treat them with respect. That should tell everyone what this is all about.

So one must raises a legitimate question whether all the noise coming from Moscow about "Russian security concerns" is not, in fact, lust for (future) conquest. Basically, in Russia's ears, a pledge not to extend NATO could very well equate with a greenlight to treat those countries as they see fit. If that is not the case, Russia could have tried to achieve their goal by persuading the potential new members that Russia will no longer return to its expansionist way. But if it is, can or should someone promise not to extend NATO, when that promise is tantamount to an invitation for Russia to take the rejected countries under its control?

[Ran]

Depriving Russia of Crimea... ? The Soviet Union handed Crimea to Ukraine in the 50s. The US never figured into it. If you mean, US policy may have hoped to work on Ukraine to get them to rebuff Russia's historical Sevastapol naval lease and remove Russia's access to the Black Sea through Crimea, that's probably true, but that's a very different thing. There's no question that Crimea has been Ukrainian territory from 1954 until 2014, when Russia broke its own treaties with Ukraine to annex Crimea.

And as others point out, non-binding agreements made in decades ago are, well, non-binding. They have an important role in dipomacy, but they cannot be seen as perpetual. How many agreements of a similar nature has Russia turned its back on? Probably too many to count, on both sides. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

"Heavily disputed" by whom? Alex Jones? Mickey Mouse?

Quote

History? Written agreements?

 

Check the NATo-Russia council/charter. That treaty is available only. I am too lazy to link it now, maybe I will do it later.

Anyway, key points in that agreement, to pay attention to Russia's security concerns.

 

• No NATO bases east of the river Elbe
• No more than 5.000 NATO troops deployed east of the Elbe.

Nato stuck to those agreements even after Russia invaded and annexed Crimea. 

Retired Russian general admitted that NATO was not an exisentital threat to Russia shortly before Russia launched its war. Well, if additional 5.000 personnel were to pose an existential threat to Russia, that would actually be more telling about Russia's defense capabilities than anything.

I find it really disheartening, that you keep on repeating that RT nonsense.

[SeanF]

5 hours ago, Celestial said:

Rippounet's argument is a load of nonsense. If Russia's concern was only abut military security ("Russian security interests", in Moscow's parlance), they could have tried to solve this problem on their own, by trying to improve their relationships with the former Warsaw Pact countries and showing genuine contrition about their past misdeeds. Poland and the Baltics were probably beyond the reach of any such attempts, but other countries like Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia, Croatia, could have had second thoughts about joining NATO if Russia tried to make amends.

For instance, in regard to Romania, Russia could have apologized for the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and the annexation of the Romanian province of Bassarabia (current Republic of Moldova) in 1812 and, again, in 1940. It could have also showed its support for the cancellation of the effect of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and for the reunification of Moldova with Romania. They could have also given back the Romanian treasury sent in Russia for safekeeping during WW1 and confiscated by Lenin. If Russia did that, there is a good chance Romania would not have sought NATO admittance. So, what did Russia do? Instigated a separatist movement in Transnistria (a part of Rep. Moldova) which they used to destabilize Moldova, kept this threat hanging until today, kept asserting they were right to annex Bassarabia (Moldova) and always reacted aggressively when the possibility of reunification was mentioned by unionist politicians (with the occasional threat to bomb NATO installations in Romania).

I mention Romania because Russia had a very enticing carrot to offer (not standing in the way of a reunification between Moldova and Romania), which would have cost them nothing economically. Yet, Russia kept behaving arrogantly and aggressively on this issue.

The same is true about the other countries. Has Russia ever tried to apologize to Hungary for 1956, to Czecholovakia for 1968 and for the years of occupation? No.

Russia has tried to prevent NATO expansion by pressuring the leading NATO countries, in particular the United States. But Russia never tried to persuade the countries seeking admittance, it never even tried to treat them with respect. That should tell everyone what this is all about.

So one must raises a legitimate question whether all the noise coming from Moscow about "Russian security concerns" is not, in fact, lust for (future) conquest. Basically, in Russia's ears, a pledge not to extend NATO could very well equate with a greenlight to treat those countries as they see fit. If that is not the case, Russia could have tried to achieve their goal by persuading the potential new members that Russia will no longer return to its expansionist way. But if it is, can or should someone promise not to extend NATO, when that promise is tantamount to an invitation for Russia to take the rejected countries under its control?

Historically, Bulgaria was very pro-Russian, so losing Bulgaria was entirely down to Russian behaviour.

[Erik of Hazelfield]

What further makes the NATO expansion argument bullshit is that NATO is, by design, a defensive alliance. It’s not a WW1-style military alliance where every member needs to join in on a war of aggression from one of its allies. If, say, Finland would want to retake former territory from Russia and launched an attack - utterly improbable in itself - then not a single NATO country would be compelled by the NATO rules to join them (and none would, for that matter). So I fail to see how Russia could feel threatened by the NATO expansion, as they claim. It’s like complaining that your neighbours lock their front door, saying it threatens the security of the neighbourhood.

It makes complete sense from another perspective though, and that is that Russia wants their “sphere of influence”. In practice it means that they want to be able to bully their neighbours, dictate what they can and cannot do, and threaten them with war if they don’t agree. 

If Russia don’t want NATO to expand, maybe they should ask themselves why countries want to join. 

[Werthead]

1 hour ago, Erik of Hazelfield said:

What further makes the NATO expansion argument bullshit is that NATO is, by design, a defensive alliance. It’s not a WW1-style military alliance where every member needs to join in on a war of aggression from one of its allies. If, say, Finland would want to retake former territory from Russia and launched an attack - utterly improbable in itself - then not a single NATO country would be compelled by the NATO rules to join them (and none would, for that matter). So I fail to see how Russia could feel threatened by the NATO expansion, as they claim. It’s like complaining that your neighbours lock their front door, saying it threatens the security of the neighbourhood.

Yup, Turkey has found that out the hard way a few times by asking for NATO assistance in offensive operations and not getting much in response, and the US's own offensive wars have had highly varying degrees of NATO support (down to "none at all" in Vietnam).

[Darzin]

A lot of the stuff about NATO expansion seems to be for external consumption and not really emphasized within Russia. I recently watched this video which while very biased towards Russia has some really good sections showing the Russian perspective especially at around the 15 minute mark when he goes to the WW2 museum which as an Azov section now and the 30 minute mark when he goes to the Donbass.

There is a lot of Russian propaganda shown and repeated on the video but it's really telling how much is of the internal propaganda is focused on protecting Russians and Russians in the near abroad from Nazis. There is scarce mention of NATO and it's not "Nazis" It's these are straight up swastika carrying Nazis coming from the  west to kill Russians the same as in 41 this message is repeated again and again, in the national museum, on billboards, in war ballads, and none of these say much about NATO. 

[illrede]

7 hours ago, SeanF said:

Historically, Bulgaria was very pro-Russian, so losing Bulgaria was entirely down to Russian behaviour.

Eh, they'll get them back. Russia has lost Bulgaria before, multiple times. One time the Foreign Ministry was throwing Bulgarian factions at the Army, with the Army throwing it's own Bulgarian factions at the Foreign Ministry, then somebody noticed that Russian influence in Bulgaria was under attack from all corners, decided that Bulgaria was trying to break with Russia, there was a royal kidnapping...

 

It's how you guys got the Mountbattens.

[Darzin]

Also Rippounet, who I believe identifies as a communist? Is holding rather standard positions for European leftism. Everywhere you look their are communists against supporting Ukraine. Read or watch some communist/socialist media and the very best your going to get is "complicated" conversations about Ukraine but more likely you'll see screeds against NATOand calls for "hands off Ukraine!" referencing the US and NATO, not Russia of course. The far left parties in Ireland and Portugal snubbed Zelensky. There are communist grassroots activists in Greece and other places organizing with teamsters and longshoremen to interrupt and halt war supplies going to Ukraine "in the name of peace". Opposition to any help for Ukraine is mainstream in communist circles, largely stemming from hatred of the US and NATO, as NATO is seen as the protector of the liberal capitalist order.

[polishgenius]

14 hours ago, Celestial said:

Poland and the Baltics were probably beyond the reach of any such attempts,

 

Poland had a strong and respectful relationship with Germany 50 years after a German state tried to genocide us. I'm not saying the wounds of the occupation would have healed by now, but a Russia that showed any signs of actually wanting reconciliation and being a rule-abiding player of the modern international game wouldn't have been rejected out of hand. 

 

 

 

Rippounet's position continues to pretend to be concerned about the overwhelming influence of the US and the West on the region, while completely depriving any nations in the region other than Russia of any agency whatsoever. It's an anti US-position that's more American-imperialist than any pro-American position we see. 

[Kalbear]

The story of how absurd amounts of very secret Intel got out onto 4chan is insane.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/04/12/discord-leaked-documents/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

To sum up - some MRA type wannabe teenage gun nuts found this one guy who had access, and to show off and control his status he posted hundreds of classified docs to their discord server.

Then after YEARS of this, a newer guy they invited posted a few of these onto a YouTube comment for another gun nut. And they sat there for a month!

And THEN they made it to a minecraft discord. 

And then, finally, they made it to 4chan and Twitter.

And the US government had literally no clue about any of this until it got leaked on twitter.

The guy was apparently just...taking pics of the docs at his home. 

[Knight Of Winter]

This bears repeating: Russia's foreign policy has been exclusively one of pressuring and bullying smaller nations into submitting to its will. United States, for all its imperialism and warmongering, understands the value of having allies, countries with mutually beneficial cooperation. And so does China, who tries its best to have a web of countries which will support its geopolitical goals and gain something in return.

But not so with Russia. For Russia doesn't barter. It doesn't negotiate. It doesn't care about you or your welfare. It doesn't try to establish a mutually beneficial relationship based on trust and mutual goals. All Russia does is threaten, and outright invade you if threats aren't enough.

Think I'm exaggerating? Fine, but how to explain that each and every one of Russia's neighbors, almost without exception, feels threatened by Russia and joins anti-Russia alliances at first opportunity? Why is that? Why does everyone in their vicinity end up fearing Russia and adopts explicitly anti-Russian stance? Let's see:

Ukraine - outright invaded by Russia. Not much to add here.

Moldavia - has problems with its territorial integrity due to pro-Russian separatist in Transnistria. If Russian invasion of Ukraine succeeded, likely Moldavia would be next in line.

Georgia - also invaded by Russia, due to latter supporting pro-Russian separatist regions (noticing a pattern yet?)

Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia - former Soviet republics who bailed out as soon as possible and joined NATO at first opportunity. At present day, they are (along with Poland) the most hawkish among European countries with regards to anti-Russian sanctions and supporting Ukrainian war effort.

Poland - was invaded or partitioned by Russia like 7-8 times in last two centuries. Everything it did since the invasion of Ukraine could be summed up as one giant "fuck you" to Russia.

Kazakhstan - recently felt the need for China to publicly state it supports Kazakhstan's territorial integrity. Gee, I wonder whom exactly do Kazakhs feel threatened by?

Finland - one of not-that-many European countries with obligatory military service (one of commonalities among many Russian neighbors) whose entire military strategy seems to be "let's be ready if Russians every decide to attack us". After decades of neutrality just to appease Russia, it finally decided enough is enough and officially petitioned to join NATO.

Sweden - oh, look. Another country in Russian vicinity who seems to think joining NATO is in its best interest. I wonder why that is.

 

Surprise, surprise - there's is a clear pattern here. Every Russian neighbor (with the exception of its lackey Belarus and China which to too powerful to bully) doesn't like Russia, for some inexplicable reason. And while historical grievances certainly can play a part here, by itself they're not nearly enough to explain this near-universal bad reputation Russia has in it vicinity. 

After all, countries have the ability to bury the hatchet and at least try to build future based on peace and cooperation. USA threw two atomic bombs at Japan - nowadays these two countries are trading partners and geopolitical allies. Finland has spent much of its history being under Swedish rule - at present day these two seem to have good relationship and wanted to join NATO together. Enmity between Germany and France lasted for almost a millennia (culminating in Nazi occupation during WWII) - just years later these two cooperated to found European Coal and Steel Community (precursor to EU).  

These things happen, but somehow they don't happen with Russia, the main difference being that latter still behaves in militaristic and imperialistic manner to this day, with zero concern for its neighbors territorial integrity. Every now and then I hear about some Russian politician or journalist casually discussing which neighbor to invade next, like some spoiled kind in candy store who thinks all this candy if free for taking. "After Ukraine is over, let's de-nacificate Poland next" ; "Let's take border regions from Kazakhstan" ; "Let's support Transnistria separating from Moldavia" and such.

Oh, yeah - the point was about NATO expanding east, at the expanse of Russia's presumed sphere of influence. With above in mind - small wonder why nobody want to be in Russia's sphere of influence, for all it brings is permanent danger of being bullied or invaded (exhibits A to J above). Russia seriously needs to rethink its foreign policy, for this one doesn't seem to bring them much good. The proposition that one should not join NATO out of fear of Russians feeling threatened has it entirely backwards: the correct thesis is Russia will be a threat to you unless you join NATO.

[mormont]

Worth noting that Russia can and does engage in traditional alliance building outside of its near environs, for example with Venezuela, Cuba, certain African countries, etc. The points above are all true, but really only for neighbouring countries, and that's the point. Senior people in the Russian state have a sense of entitlement and grievance about those countries and Russia's place in the world that doesn't apply otherwise. 

[SeanF]

Russia has a remarkable lack of diplomatic ability.  Even its allies are always allies of convenience, on the basis of "my enemy's enemy is my friend."

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, Knight Of Winter said:

This bears repeating: Russia's foreign policy has been exclusively one of pressuring and bullying smaller nations into submitting to its will. United States, for all its imperialism and warmongering, understands the value of having allies, countries with mutually beneficial cooperation. And so does China, who tries its best to have a web of countries which will support its geopolitical goals and gain something in return.

But not so with Russia. For Russia doesn't barter. It doesn't negotiate. It doesn't care about you or your welfare. It doesn't try to establish a mutually beneficial relationship based on trust and mutual goals. All Russia does is threaten, and outright invade you if threats aren't enough.

Think I'm exaggerating? Fine, but how to explain that each and every one of Russia's neighbors, almost without exception, feels threatened by Russia and joins anti-Russia alliances at first opportunity? Why is that? Why does everyone in their vicinity end up fearing Russia and adopts explicitly anti-Russian stance? Let's see:

Ukraine - outright invaded by Russia. Not much to add here.

Moldavia - has problems with its territorial integrity due to pro-Russian separatist in Transnistria. If Russian invasion of Ukraine succeeded, likely Moldavia would be next in line.

Georgia - also invaded by Russia, due to latter supporting pro-Russian separatist regions (noticing a pattern yet?)

Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia - former Soviet republics who bailed out as soon as possible and joined NATO at first opportunity. At present day, they are (along with Poland) the most hawkish among European countries with regards to anti-Russian sanctions and supporting Ukrainian war effort.

Poland - was invaded or partitioned by Russia like 7-8 times in last two centuries. Everything it did since the invasion of Ukraine could be summed up as one giant "fuck you" to Russia.

Kazakhstan - recently felt the need for China to publicly state it supports Kazakhstan's territorial integrity. Gee, I wonder whom exactly do Kazakhs feel threatened by?

Finland - one of not-that-many European countries with obligatory military service (one of commonalities among many Russian neighbors) whose entire military strategy seems to be "let's be ready if Russians every decide to attack us". After decades of neutrality just to appease Russia, it finally decided enough is enough and officially petitioned to join NATO.

Sweden - oh, look. Another country in Russian vicinity who seems to think joining NATO is in its best interest. I wonder why that is.

 

Surprise, surprise - there's is a clear pattern here. Every Russian neighbor (with the exception of its lackey Belarus and China which to too powerful to bully) doesn't like Russia, for some inexplicable reason. And while historical grievances certainly can play a part here, by itself they're not nearly enough to explain this near-universal bad reputation Russia has in it vicinity. 

After all, countries have the ability to bury the hatchet and at least try to build future based on peace and cooperation. USA threw two atomic bombs at Japan - nowadays these two countries are trading partners and geopolitical allies. Finland has spent much of its history being under Swedish rule - at present day these two seem to have good relationship and wanted to join NATO together. Enmity between Germany and France lasted for almost a millennia (culminating in Nazi occupation during WWII) - just years later these two cooperated to found European Coal and Steel Community (precursor to EU).  

These things happen, but somehow they don't happen with Russia, the main difference being that latter still behaves in militaristic and imperialistic manner to this day, with zero concern for its neighbors territorial integrity. Every now and then I hear about some Russian politician or journalist casually discussing which neighbor to invade next, like some spoiled kind in candy store who thinks all this candy if free for taking. "After Ukraine is over, let's de-nacificate Poland next" ; "Let's take border regions from Kazakhstan" ; "Let's support Transnistria separating from Moldavia" and such.

Oh, yeah - the point was about NATO expanding east, at the expanse of Russia's presumed sphere of influence. With above in mind - small wonder why nobody want to be in Russia's sphere of influence, for all it brings is permanent danger of being bullied or invaded (exhibits A to J above). Russia seriously needs to rethink its foreign policy, for this one doesn't seem to bring them much good. The proposition that one should not join NATO out of fear of Russians feeling threatened has it entirely backwards: the correct thesis is Russia will be a threat to you unless you join NATO.

@Rippounet

obviously you are under no obligation to reply but I, for one, would be very interested in hearing your response to what seem, to me, to be entirely factual observations about existing Russian foreign policy.

[SeanF]

@Knight Of WinterOne of the most remarkable burials of the hatchet, IMHO, is the reconciliation between the US and Vietnam.  Yet, it seems the Vietnamese regarded the US as just a passing threat, whereas China is the old enemy (and former hegemon).

China does have more diplomatic skill than Russia, but also has problems with states in its immediate vicinity, such as Vietnam, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, the Philippines.  Some Chinese alliances seem more trouble than they're worth.

But, Russia is so bad at diplomacy that it alienates even potentially friendly states, like Kazakhstan.

Edited April 13, 2023 by SeanF

[SeanF]

@CelestialThere's a widespread view on both far right and far left, and among "realists" like John Mearsheimer, that Russia as a rightful place as the gendarme of Eastern Europe.  Unsurprisingly, Eastern Europeans don't agree.

There also seems a reluctance to view countries like Poland, Ukraine, the Baltics. etc. as "real" countries.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

11 minutes ago, SeanF said:

@CelestialThere's a widespread view on both far right and far left, and among "realists" like John Mearsheimer, that Russia as a rightful place as the gendarme of Eastern Europe.  Unsurprisingly, Eastern Europeans don't agree.

There also seems a reluctance to view countries like Poland, Ukraine, the Baltics. etc. as "real" countries.

Yeah… that’s almost explicit endorsement of imperialism…