The whole premise is broken because NATO isn’t some sort of an entity devouring satellite states. Sovereign countries apply to join.
Article doesn’t mention former german FM Genschers statements.
In principle its true that there was no agreement or promise on NATO expansion, but there are a lot of hints at an understanding during the era that shifted over time.
There was no promise not to enlarge NATO, but there definitely was a promise not to invade Ukraine made by Russia and others.
Even if there was russia still didn’t respect Budapest memorandum
Here a case where things were promised, like a respecting borders, independence and sovereignty. For some reason they too want to break free by their own choice: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum)
Even if there had been we don’t let the two presidents of imperial powers decide which alliance independent countries are allowed to join. It’s not in their remit
There kind of, sort of was during a semi-official side talk. It was vague and never ratified.
Russia was no longer in a position to make such demands by then. They knew it, the world knew it. There was an off-hand gesture to prevent humiliation because Russia just kept asking that question and was directing it at people that didn’t have the authority to make such calls (the German chancellor if I recall correctly).
It was promised to the Soviet Union, which is why NATO felt it was free to do as it wished after the collapse.
Read up on the collapse of the soviet union. It is clear from historians who have read archives that Gorbachev simply did not see the collapse coming, so there was no point in barring NATO. He accepted unified Germany staying in NATO as he did need money that Germany could provide under the auspices of paying to rebase the soldiers who needed a place to stay now that The GDR was no longer available. As for the rest of the eastern bloc, he really believed that they and the Soviet Union could just integrate into a common Europe, where NATO was not really thought about much
everyone who had even a remote capability to look at documents of the time knew this already. which means Putin knows it as well, making all of Russia’s claims blatant lies
Even if there was a verbal agreement it wouldn’t matter as verbal agreements don’t last once the politician who said it is out of office (and you’re lucky if it lasts that long). Want a lasting agreement? Get it fucking signed or shut the fuck up. This whole “verbal agreement promising no eastward NATO expansion” argument is for the smoothest of the smooth brained vatniks.
I had someone tell me this “fact”. I told him there was no such document and that it’s a part of the Ruz fantasy. We argued a bit and I told him to tell me the name of that agreement. He spent the next hour googling and came to the conclusion he was misinformed.
There’s no such thing as an agreement between NATO and Ruz. It is all a part of the Ruz narrative. It has been spread so much that many people in the west parrots it as knowledge.
Even if there was such a promise. It doesn’t mean anything with a document and a signature. That’s diplomacy 101
There have been uncounted understandings and spheres of influence in human history. Even if we accepted these as some binding eternal contracts, we’d still never be able to honor them all. What it comes down to is wether you accept the sovereignty of these states and the freedom of their people to choose their own destiny. Putin clearny does not.
The fact that they seem to consider the loss of influence and power to be a just cause for war makes them trying to take the moral high ground simply laughable. The EU should consider invading the UK since they clearly ignored our understanding. This is inevitable and there is no alternative once the UK moves closer to the US. Like I said, simply laughable.
14 comments
The whole premise is broken because NATO isn’t some sort of an entity devouring satellite states. Sovereign countries apply to join.
Article doesn’t mention former german FM Genschers statements.
In principle its true that there was no agreement or promise on NATO expansion, but there are a lot of hints at an understanding during the era that shifted over time.
There was no promise not to enlarge NATO, but there definitely was a promise not to invade Ukraine made by Russia and others.
Even if there was russia still didn’t respect Budapest memorandum
These felt lucky to break free from the USSR: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baltic_states_under_Soviet_rule](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baltic_states_under_Soviet_rule)
Here a case where things were promised, like a respecting borders, independence and sovereignty. For some reason they too want to break free by their own choice: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum)
Even if there had been we don’t let the two presidents of imperial powers decide which alliance independent countries are allowed to join. It’s not in their remit
There kind of, sort of was during a semi-official side talk. It was vague and never ratified.
Russia was no longer in a position to make such demands by then. They knew it, the world knew it. There was an off-hand gesture to prevent humiliation because Russia just kept asking that question and was directing it at people that didn’t have the authority to make such calls (the German chancellor if I recall correctly).
It was promised to the Soviet Union, which is why NATO felt it was free to do as it wished after the collapse.
Read up on the collapse of the soviet union. It is clear from historians who have read archives that Gorbachev simply did not see the collapse coming, so there was no point in barring NATO. He accepted unified Germany staying in NATO as he did need money that Germany could provide under the auspices of paying to rebase the soldiers who needed a place to stay now that The GDR was no longer available. As for the rest of the eastern bloc, he really believed that they and the Soviet Union could just integrate into a common Europe, where NATO was not really thought about much
everyone who had even a remote capability to look at documents of the time knew this already. which means Putin knows it as well, making all of Russia’s claims blatant lies
Even if there was a verbal agreement it wouldn’t matter as verbal agreements don’t last once the politician who said it is out of office (and you’re lucky if it lasts that long). Want a lasting agreement? Get it fucking signed or shut the fuck up. This whole “verbal agreement promising no eastward NATO expansion” argument is for the smoothest of the smooth brained vatniks.
I had someone tell me this “fact”. I told him there was no such document and that it’s a part of the Ruz fantasy. We argued a bit and I told him to tell me the name of that agreement. He spent the next hour googling and came to the conclusion he was misinformed.
There’s no such thing as an agreement between NATO and Ruz. It is all a part of the Ruz narrative. It has been spread so much that many people in the west parrots it as knowledge.
Even if there was such a promise. It doesn’t mean anything with a document and a signature. That’s diplomacy 101
There have been uncounted understandings and spheres of influence in human history. Even if we accepted these as some binding eternal contracts, we’d still never be able to honor them all. What it comes down to is wether you accept the sovereignty of these states and the freedom of their people to choose their own destiny. Putin clearny does not.
The fact that they seem to consider the loss of influence and power to be a just cause for war makes them trying to take the moral high ground simply laughable. The EU should consider invading the UK since they clearly ignored our understanding. This is inevitable and there is no alternative once the UK moves closer to the US. Like I said, simply laughable.