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.
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.
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.
I think it is generally known that foreign relation promises not enshrined in formal treaties should not be expected to last across different administrations.
The political situation in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet republics changed pretty substantially as well.
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?
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.
Russia picked up all the Soviet Union debt obligations. All those successor states have been essentially debt free on day one.
Repercussions of Holodomor were deaths of millions of Soviet citizens in Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Belarus. What do you want Russia to accept here ?
Yet they love Soviet Union obligations when they don't return Lithuania's interwar embassy in Rome. Or when May 8/9 comes around :)
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.
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.
> my kid
You can't make this shit up.
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.