undefined | Better HN

0 pointsprotomolecule2y ago0 comments

You see, now you are inventing strawmen like "eternal commitment" and "the narrative of how NATO has always wanted to surround Russia". I don't think I can continue this conversation if you are not talking in good faith.

"By the time new members were accepted into NATO ... Russia had started its descent into a totalitarian dictatorship"

The decision to expand NATO was made in 1997 [0]

And by the way, here is a passage from wikipedia on that first round of NATO enlargement [1]:

"That year, Russian leaders like Foreign Minister Andrei Kozyrev indicated their country's opposition to NATO enlargement. While Russian President Boris Yeltsin did sign an agreement with NATO in May 1997 that included text referring to new membership, he clearly described NATO expansion as "unacceptable" and a threat to Russian security in his December 1997 National Security Blueprint."

And a bit from "What Eltsin heard" [2]:

"On December 1, Foreign Minister Kozyrev unexpectedly refused to sign up for the Partnership of Peace; and on December 5, Yeltsin lashed out about NATO at the Budapest summit of the CSCE, in front of a surprised Clinton: “Why are you sowing the seeds of mistrust? ... Europe is in danger of plunging into a cold peace …. History demonstrates that it is a dangerous illusion to suppose that the destinies of continents and of the world community in general can somehow be managed from one single capital.” "

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_Madrid_summit

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO#Visegr%C3%...

[2] https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2018...

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

mopsi2y ago· 2 in thread

> You see, now you are inventing strawmen like "eternal commitment" and "the narrative of how NATO has always wanted to surround Russia". I don't think I can continue this conversation if you are not talking in good faith.

I am not inventing anything. I have not seen a single source that would indicate a commitment not to accept new members into NATO until the present day. Nor have you cited any high-ranking Soviet or Russian officials from those times saying that they had a firm commitment. The constant unmet Russian demands that you cite also point that way.

> The decision to expand NATO was made in 1997 [0]

By that time, liberals had lost influential posititions in Russia and hardliners had been consolidating power for several years. Putin had risen from St Petersburg's mayor's errand boy to presidential staff in the Kremlin, to become the head of Russian security service (FSB) a year later.

The first Chechen War started in 1994 and Russian atrocities committed there were a key turning point in taking Central and Eastern European security concerns seriously:

  The First Battle of Grozny was the Russian Army's invasion and subsequent conquest of the Chechen capital, Grozny, during the early months of the First Chechen War. /---/ The battle caused enormous destruction and casualties amongst the civilian population and saw the heaviest bombing campaign in Europe since the end of World War II.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_(1994%E2%80%9...

> "On December 1, Foreign Minister Kozyrev unexpectedly refused to sign up for the Partnership of Peace; and on December 5, Yeltsin lashed out about NATO at the Budapest summit of the CSCE, in front of a surprised Clinton: “Why are you sowing the seeds of mistrust? ... Europe is in danger of plunging into a cold peace …. History demonstrates that it is a dangerous illusion to suppose that the destinies of continents and of the world community in general can somehow be managed from one single capital.” "

Kozyrev is who wrote the three paragraphs I cited previously. In the PDF I linked to, he gives a description of NATO-Russia relations during his tenure (1990-1996). In the end, he concludes that Russians were on the wrong side of history and Americans and Europeans were on the right side of history. The outcome - peace and prosperity in Europe, death and destruction in Russia and everywhere they go - certainly supports his view.

protomoleculeOP2y ago

"I am not inventing anything. I have not seen a single source that would indicate a commitment not to accept new members into NATO until the present day."

You are inventing a strawman again. 1997 isn't present day. Bye.

mopsi2y ago

You have not presented a case for any year.

In fact, western governments can't give such informal guarantees further than their election term even if they wanted to, because unlike in Russia, governments change every 4-5 years and the current president, prime minister or cabinet ministers can't promise what their successors will or won't do, because the successors are often completely different people from different political parties with vastly different political platforms. That's why we have written treaties. Soviet and Russian diplomats are without any doubt educated enough to know that.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse