"The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a single Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either.""At one extreme, there’s a position you sometimes hear from the American side, that none of this ever came up, it’s a total myth, the Russians are psychotic," Johns Hopkins University’s Mary Sarotte, the author of a book examining the issue, told the New Yorker. "On the other end, you have the very adamant Russian position: ‘We were totally betrayed, there’s no doubt about it.’ Unsurprisingly, when you get into the evidence, the truth looks to be somewhere in between."
So, I suppose Gorbachev should have got it in writing, and been more specific about NATO's future plans when he did. Such a lack of foresight.
You've left little doubt as to which side of the spectrum you're on, however - and how far down it you stand.
So what about the rest? Got anything else to add?
Sorry, not into any Slavic ethno-nationalists I am afraid. Didnt even really know the term until I started looking into Putin and the inner circle of ethnic theorists who had brilliant grand plans such as 'conquer all of Europe, and create an empire that can take on America directly'. If you want to catch up with them, call Putin, get him to send you some of his reading material.I don't "know" anything. There are some viewpoints I tend to pay more attention to than others, not least because those security reasons have been a part of political discourse for at least thirty years, and have been considered on the sidelines not only in Russia, or other parts of the world, but in America itself. As I've demonstrated, there are democratic candidates in the USA right now who are considering that perspective as part of their electoral platforms.
Noam Chomsky wrote a book entitled "Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance" back in the early 2000's (I think) which discussed the situation as it was then at length. Much of it is still relevant today. While some aspects of it might be a little dated now, due to it having been written twenty years ago so that more recent events are not considered by way of refutation or otherwise (including the current American domestic situation), I did at least take the time to read it, and consider it in entirety rather than those parts I agreed with. Or didn't.
It's generally referred to as having a well-rounded opinion.
As to who I'm currently surrounding myself with... that would consist of a couple of older people I don't discuss this sort of thing with, a few dogs, and a few acres of dirt with quite a few useful and not so useful fauna.
Not too many Slavic Ethno-nationalists around this way. More of your sort, really, when I think about it.
"The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a single Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either."
In an article that looks at both sides of the argument, and clearly states that there was definitely no formal agreement, and flip flops between the issue of whether there were informal assurances, you pulled one paragraph to support your interpretation. Well done you.
This is why Ukraine needs to be a NATO member because nothing else will guarantee that Russia won't try to invade Ukraine again.Of also note is the total ignoring of the Budapest memorandum by certain posters on here.
That is a real treaty signed off by all parties & the UN. Russia even got Ukraine's nukes & Blackjack bombers out of the treaty.
Yet there are posters who have failed to mention the fact that Russia agreed to guarantee Ukranian sovereignty in this treaty who complain about a non existent NATO promise to a non existent nation (USSR).
This is a direct indictment on your comprehension and reading skills, to begin with. Something which has been apparent since fairly early on, but serves as a demonstration. During the course of this thread, I've come to distrust not only what you are saying, but your ability to comprehend anything said at all.Sorry, not into any Slavic ethno-nationalists I am afraid.
I've read plenty of what Putin has to say, at least in the public sphere. Most of it consists of re-iterating the same points for over two decades at least, which apparently has been an exercise in futility on his part given the lack of engagement with those issues.Didnt even really know the term until I started looking into Putin and the inner circle of ethnic theorists who had brilliant grand plans such as 'conquer all of Europe, and create an empire that can take on America directly'. If you want to catch up with them, call Putin, get him to send you some of his reading material.
Yes, they would be. If that were the case.See, all of your plans are rather insane if the bug in Putin is of the 'invade Europe and create an empire' type, and not the 'I am afraid of big bad Nato' type.
Let me get this straight here.So, can I assume you can read his mind, and you know that the invasion plan for Poland is not on his desk underneath the invasion plan for Ukraine? Just waiting for some big event, like, I don't know, all Nato support being withdrawn from Poland?
I suppose the only real response I can make to this is to refer you to a comment I made earlier directed at, who was it, Zidane98 I think, which basically noted that "The intent, I assumed, was to discuss that backdrop and determine the effect past events had and have on the current situation", to which it appears you're now responding with "who gives a s**t".And incidentally.
Putins viewpoint on the current situation counts. Chomsky's viewpoint is of less value than a fart in a bottle. And the security discourse of the last thirty years also doesn't matter a damn. There was this political analyst, he had an interesting thought in 1995 verses, what Putin has decided to do right now.
And finally...Please stop using the suffering of the people of Ukraine as some sort of wrapper to put all your political grievances in.
Oh, and as an afterthought in response to the prevarication regarding those articles Zidane posted about the "not one inch" subplot.
If, as it appears, no one here is actually going to read that article, perhaps I might suggest that you simply
Western leaders gave multiple assurances against NATO expansion to Gorbachev in 1990-1991 according to declassified American, Russian, British, Germans documentsnsarchive.gwu.edu
... read the text beneath the title?
You've said so several times, despite no one actually disagreeing with you.It is a fact that there was no formal agreement over NATO expansion.
No, not all of them do. There is clear evidence that a significant amount of backdoor diplomacy was involved, and that Russia was naïve enough to sign an agreement in good faith with the Americans and NATO.Those informal discussions relate to NATO bases on the territory of the former East German state which dissolved before the USSR dissolved on 26 Dec 1991.
The Budapest Memorandum was signed in 1994. At that point, NATO had (mostly) honoured it's informal commitment not to expand Eastward.By the way what are your thoughts on the actual real agreement ratified by the UN, US, UK & France (Budapest agreement) that resulted in Ukraine transferring its nuclear arsenal + TU160 bomber fleet to Russia in exchange for Russia guaranteeing Ukranian sovereignty / not to ever attack it? In this case the US actually encouraged Ukraine to transfer its nuclear arsenal to Russia. One must conclude that a Ukraine in possession of its nuclear arsenal and TU160 blackjack bombers would not be attacked by Russia.
I did read that one excerpt, yes. I also read all the others.
You've said so several times, despite no one actually disagreeing with you.
Perhaps the discussion is a little more nuanced than you're able to follow?
No, not all of them do. There is clear evidence that a significant amount of backdoor diplomacy was involved, and that Russia was naïve enough to sign an agreement in good faith with the Americans and NATO.
In this manner, NATO was able to do as it pleased in Eastern Europe while Russia could do little more than sit on its hands. At some point, Russia made it clear that Ukraine was "a bridge too far" (2008 from memory), in effect, and was ignored; hence we have have a war.
The same attitude was not taken with regard to Finland and Sweden, it was only about Ukraine as a last point of contention.
Russian president says Moscow views Scandinavian nations' accession to NATO differently, unlike Ukraine, since it has no territorial disputes - Anadolu Ajansıwww.aa.com.tr
This article is an example of how military escalation leads to further escalation. Those of us who lived thorough the Cold War know too well how it occurs and the disquiet and instability it results in. I'm quite surprised the Cuban Missile Crisis hasn't received more attention, being an example of how nations react when someone puts missiles on their doorstep.
I'm also very disappointed with the general attitude that, when a pot with a lid on a gas stove begins to bubble over, the only effective action is to push the lid down tighter.
I think you'll find anyone who has boiled a pot of water would know that that isn't quite the solution they'd employ, and yet...here we are. Again.
A reply from me that maybe, just once, we could try turning the gas off, or removing the lid might be an idea, but that was met with howls of derision.
The Budapest Memorandum was signed in 1994. At that point, NATO had (mostly) honoured it's informal commitment not to expand Eastward.
Both sides were still acting in good faith.
There was also, apparently, some discussion regarding the language used by NATO in defining their obligations to Ukraine - as in, there were never any guarantees to come to its defence if it attacked, unlike NATO members. It's why they haven't (or are not of a mind to) put boots on the ground in Ukraine. They are under no obligation to.
I did read that one excerpt, yes. I also read all the others.
That is pretty much your modus operandi. Sort of a self-own in some respects, but I doubt you'd see it that way. I'm not going to indulge in a response on that the subject of logical fallacies on a line-by-line basis, (feel free to tell me that is because I can't... oh wait. There's one) but if I pick up any (more) along the way whilst writing this response I'll let you know.
With regard to your position on NATO, you've also worked almost exclusively under the premise that if there is peace in Europe now and if that has lasted since the end of the Second World War, then that must have been the result of enforcement under the terms of NATO.
I disagree with that premise, too. I think it extremely unlikely there would have been another war fought between European nations, in Europe; at least not for a very long time, NATO or no NATO.
Two world wars taught them all a rather valuable lesson. I've a further opinion that the member countries most willing to engage in conflict now are the same ones who were least materially affected by it. One came home with a booming economy, a healthy balance sheet, a pile of loans to call in and not a shell crater in sight.
You mentioned a reduction in defence spending, celebrated that Germany is spending less on defence than ever.
NATO's defence spending as an organisation is steadily increasing, year on year. Bit of a drop around 2015 or so from memory, but the overall trajectory is up, not down. Oh, there's your red herring, by the way.
The decreased spending on military by Germany (soon to change, if I recall), set as a distraction to the fact that NATO's defence spending in general is increasing, also highlights a couple of other points to consider. If there is a net increase in NATO spending, and Germany's share (I'm not sure they're the only ones decreasing spending, just running with your example) is decreasing, then that points to certain controlling interests becoming... well, more controlling.
I'll draw your attention to the fact that article 5 has only ever been invoked twice - both times by the USA. After 9/11 from memory.
I'll leave it to you to decide for yourself the attitude of other NATO member states whose participation in Operation Eagle Assist was deemed mandatory by a controlling member state who apparent were worried they weren't able to defend themselves against... someone.
Oh, and there was that one time, when NATO bombed the s**t out of a sovereign nation, caused numerous civilian causalities in the process, and then carved up the aforementioned sovereign nation into a couple of smaller ones... while the UN waved a finger in admonition.
I suppose I could give you a list of all NATO operations (they didn't act militarily at all before 1991), but you'd end up with a list of punitive actions against smaller opponents largely unable to defend themselves (or in some cases, no clearly defined opponent at all) in defence of... well, the economic interests of its members. In at least one of those actions, the right to self-determination was told to go have intercourse with itself.
Back in the 80's, we used to call it "Peace through Superior Firepower".
Basically the plot of World War One, indeed. You see, the logic behind the member nations of those military alliances was that attacking one was an attack on all of them, or as a defensive measure against all the other alliances... which...
Oh never mind. Here.
NATO has enjoyed a period of supremacy for quite a long time now, mostly due to the fact that that really wasn't anyone capable of challenging it after the collapse of the Soviet Union. But with the rise of other players on the global stage, there does seem to be a worry developing that that supremacy might soon become challenged again.
And if it is challenged again, particularly as a result of it failing to adhere to it's ostensible defensive posture, or of an increasing tendency for it to serve as the military arm of an economic bloc, and if other states form alliances of their own capable of challenging it, then the entire plan becomes, once again... bollocks.
The fallout of which, in all probability, would be significantly greater than that following the First World War. Yes, intended.
So yes, I do understand your point of view regarding that aspect of NATO. The problem I have with it, however, is that it almost entirely Eurocentric... in a world increasingly not. It is subject to hysterical responses based upon relatively minor events such as
the Shooting of an archduke a missile veering off coursea border shooting (dang, someone used that one before too) as a pretext for involving an entire organisation into something potentially devastating they aren't involved in, don't particularly want to be involved in, but are forced to be involved in because of a 70 year old treaty.
I think that NATO is an outdated institution and has become more an arm for the EU than anything else. I'm far from the only one who believes that.
As mentioned previously, NATO is a dominant Eurocentric alliance. If any powerful non-European alliances are formed in the future, they'll be formed as a defence against NATO, although not on an obvious level.
So I suppose we've got a bit of a chicken and egg argument going on here.
No, they'd just recovered from a devastating attack by Germany and a couple of her allies. After they'd joined Germany in attacking Poland, too... how rude of Germany. The rest of Europe was engaged in fighting against Germany... although not necessarily on behalf of Russia.
Agreed. I'm not sure why you think this is in support of your argument and not mine, but ok.
I don't recall saying NATO would have attacked Russia at all. I did say at some point (not recently from memory) that Russia perceives NATO as a threat, and got howled down for it. Poland's recent reaction to Wagner being near its border would seem to bear out the opinion that foreign military presence on the borders of a nation does indeed make everyone a little twitchy.
A part of my proposed solution was to stop making everyone twitchy by getting rid of the thing making them twitchy, and let them trade with whomever the hell they want, even if it is someone you don't like. There's that self-determination thing again.
Again, it is not an isolated opinion.
A peaceful and safe Europe is one way of looking at it - particularly from within that peaceful and safe Europe.
If you're locked outside it, however, and all the guns are pointed in your direction... I don't think I'd be feeling all that relaxed. Nor glad.
Nor is a reduction in the military spending of Germany in any way an indication that NATO has been "steadily demilitarizing for decades." The opposite is true.
It is NATO Russia is nervous about, not Germany.
I'm going to skip a substantial part of the rest, being mostly waffle about what you think Putin thinks.. and what I think, based upon your "observation".
You know, If I were to stand Putin and Biden side by side in a room, and asked them both to give a speech stating their position on world affairs, I think I'd come to the conclusion Putin appears more sane than most of the US presidents that have come and gone during his tenure. A little more harried lately, but that's to be expected.
It would seem that a significant portion of the planet have the advantage over me, then. I cannot read minds at all.
I can, however,
make judgments on those I deem proficient, and those who are not. Including myself, which ties in to the concept of the NPC below and one factor which differentiates between a person in possession of a considered opinion, and one who isn't.
There has been increased talk about that lately. The term "NPC's" used in a non-gaming context. I disagree that it's random, although I'll concede it might appear that way to you.
A subset of those are state actors, and obviously their counterparts, non-state actors. State actors are free to act with the tacit support or approval of the state and therefore enjoy a great deal of freedom and licence in the pursuit of their own goals, non-state actors will often find themselves in a position where they must be significantly more circumspect.
and on that note:
Yes. Several. I've already mentioned some things on the matter. Bit disingenuous to say "with no problem", don't you think? It has been a problem for thirty years.
It's actually a subject popping up in public discourse quite regularly, various promises made by NATO and the Americans dating back to... about '92, I think, either broken or never followed up on, Ukraine being central in later years.
Some of the Democrat candidates in America I've been watching have discussed it. I haven't caught up on the Republicans yet.
I've missed quite a few. There are an awful lot of you, and only so many hours in a day.
This whole "Right to determine their own status" thing is something enforced arbitrarily and subjectively, usually when there is some sort of profit involved on the part of the one doing the enforcing. I get the impression the entire discussion serves mostly as a distraction. It's a nothing phrase. A dog whistle. Right up there with "rules based world order".
The only time the "Right to Self Determination" appears to be relevant is when the people controlling discussions seem to have decided it's a good way to get you onboard for the ride, or throw you off it.
How do you feel about the right to self determination for the Donbas? Afghanistan? Iran? Iraq? The Basques? Sudan? Oooh, what about the natives of Australia and the USA? South America?
Let me see. What about... hmm. Nope, better not get into that one.
I might think differently if it was regarded as a universal right, and applied universally, but it isn't.
Thank you for valuable contribution.Long way to out yourself as a Putin **********. The only us president he is more rational than would be trump. Putin is capricious and entirely about service of self. His mother should have taken it up the arse instead of giving birth to him.
Idgaf if I get threadbanned it has to be said.
I support the right of an invaded people to demonise invaders. That it fair and natural. * the so called russian soldier as an orc bully, with a troglodyte intelligence and the hygiene of a rotting fish. * them into the sun.Thank you for valuable contribution.
I think you could probably have taken it a bit further and called me a Nazi or something, or an Orc, that having been deemed a more appropriate response in attempt to dehumanize the enemy, but fair effort.
When I think about it, the substitution of the word Orc for Nazi is another example of the spirit of agreements can be undermined, which appears to be pertinent here.
It does serve as perhaps an example of something I mentioned earlier - which is the seemingly inevitable result of track 2 diplomacy. And, of course, the difference between "official" treatment of state and non-state actors, which is something else I'm observing with interest.
Oh, and, quick note - Zidane is actually right for once. I used the term NATO rather than the USA. Good point.Budapest memorandum wasn't signed by NATO.
Signatories were Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, UK & USA. It was ratified by the UN.
Oh, and, quick note - Zidane is actually right for once. I used the term NATO rather than the USA. Good point.
The only defence I have for that slip is to note that, these days, it's becoming harder and harder to discern the difference.
Are their mothers hamsters, and do their fathers smell of elderberries?I support the right of an invaded people to demonise invaders. That it fair and natural. * the so called russian soldier as an orc bully, with a troglodyte intelligence and the hygiene of a rotting fish. * them into the sun.
missed the movie reference you are trying to allude to.Are their mothers hamsters, and do their fathers smell of elderberries?
It's hard, sometimes, to disagree with Putin's assessment of the wider conflict with the West as an existential one.
Particularly not when there are a plethora of shining examples of the products of that culture littered about anywhere one cares to look.