Hacker News Reader

Comment by DubiousPusher | Hacker News Reader

This seems like much ado about nothing. Yes, in joining these countries to NATO the west violated the letter of this agreement but under the Yelsen administration this probably was not percieved as hostile and no one forsaw the retrograde in the relationship between Russia and NATO at that time.

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.

View on HN

> 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.

> 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

So was Sweden at the time...

I think your understanding of History is flawed at best.

Appeal to hypocrisy.

Also, haven't seen Sweden invade anyone recently.

No it's not appeal to hypocrisy, Russias actions are pretty much defined by it's geography it's effectively a land locked country without warm water ports surrounded by local and global super powers.

Sweden has maintained a policy of neutrality since the Napoleonic Wars. I don't recall Russia perusing any similar foreign policy during the same period.

And before that? Gustaf the II? The 30 year war?

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

> 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?

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.

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.

> 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?

I'm not sure. I think poor agreements lead to more wars.

> 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?

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.

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.

> trade as a weapon

the west doesn't use access to capital as a weapon?

Yep, but reasons are clear and not random.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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...

Right - just not nec in the interest of the Russian people. A tough one.

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.

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.

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.

+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 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.

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.

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.

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 ?

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 :)

> 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

> For what purpose did we go back on our word? ... so the two superpowers

why have 2 superpowers, when you can have one?

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.

> Instead we decided to humiliate the Russians

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 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.

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.)

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com