Good that they are cracking down on ransomware gangs; bad that they are looming over an invasion of ukraine.
I'm not for a moment trying to defend Russian bellicosity in Georgia, Ukraine and Crimea. I'm just noting that it's understandable, given repeated Western violations of promises and treaties. Treaties signed by the USA, in particular, might as well be used toilet-paper (ask Iran).
This isn’t fully true. It’s been alleged. But Gorbachev has publicly admitted he has no memory of it. There were no agreements signed nor even public statements made backing it up. Which is strange since the U.S. and USSR did sign a memorandum on Germany’s reunification, in the context of which this supposed agreement was made.
All of which is irrelevant given Russia signed the Budapest memorandum in 1994, an actual treaty, not some secret handshake hocus pocus, which Putin is presently violating. So it’s weird for it to be waiving the flag of broken agreements.
No. It’s supposed to “enforce” treaties signed under its auspices, but even that requires SC approval, which any member can veto.
But in general, I think the assumption is that parties enter into international treaties because both parties reckon the agreement to be a "win". I'm not aware of anyone ever trying to enforce a mutual-defence treaty - if you violate one of those, I think people just take it that the treaty is over.
There's no "international law", as such; there's just a web of agreements.
taken from https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16117-document-06-record-...
This was a discussion in prelude to the signing of the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany [1]. Baker's is a statement of understanding the "Soviet Union [and] other European countries'" position, not an agreement--not even the hint of one. None of it made it into the final Treaty. Lots of ideas were mooted and abandoned in that transcript; it's revisionist to fixate on that one. (As, again, Gorbachev himself publicly admitted.)
Also, immediately following that statement, Baker says that he does not "have the Germans’ agreement to this approach," and that what he has relayed is "an account of this approach," holding that "maybe something much better can be created." Two men discussing ideas in pursuit of an agreement, which was drafted days and signed months thereafter.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Final_Settlement...
Thanks for clarifying.
The idea was discussed. Nobody disputes that. Gorbachev disputes there was agreement. A position the transcript supports.
It’s like if two people are negotiating a price; one says 5, the other acknowledges hearing five and proposes 3, and then they trade at 4. Twenty years later, one of their daughters calls foul because the buyer acknowledged hearing 5 but only paid 4. That is the imbecilic position this argument takes.
No memory of an agreement, not of a discussion. Putin claims agreement. That is false.
Is this what you're talking about? https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/05/myths-and-misconception...
> However, Gorbachev neither asked for nor was given any formal guarantees that there would be no further expansion of NATO beyond the territory of a united Germany.34 The issue was not even under discussion at NATO at the time, since the Warsaw Pact and the USSR were both still in existence. Even if the Warsaw Pact’s days were clearly numbered, there was no expectation in Western capitals in the autumn of 1990 that the USSR would collapse a year later.
Compare with https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/russia...
> As early as December 1991, Russian President Boris Yeltsin wrote to NATO leaders saying that his country would join the Alliance some time in the future. Yeltsin’s successor Vladimir Putin, hinted during his first presidential term that Russia could become a full fledged member of the Atlantic Alliance.
If Russia wants less NATO troops close to their borders then they should consider not invading their neighbours.
> And it's worth noting that the Russian troops are all still in Russia (apart from the troops in Crimea, and the surrogates in eastern Ukraine).
To be clear, more than a few Russian soldiers have been captured in eastern Ukraine, it's not just surrogates fighting.
> I'm not for a moment trying to defend Russian bellicosity in Georgia, Ukraine and Crimea. I'm just noting that it's understandable, given repeated Western violations of promises and treaties.
I really don't see how military actions in those places is "understandable," in the context of "Western violations". Annexing Crimea did nothing to improve Russia's security against NATO. If anything it hurt Russia's place in the international community and hardened NATO against it. Keep in mind that they didn't annex Crimea because Ukraine was thinking of joining NATO, it's because they were thinking of joining the EU. This isn't about security concerns, this is about maintaining regional hegemony over Eastern Europe.
Really? Russia's naval base at Sevastopol is in the Crimea. That's a very large naval base, and provides their only naval access to the Mediterranean. In order to station an old carrier off the shore of Syria, they had to sail it from the Baltic, through the English Channel, round through the Straits of Gibraltar. That must have been pretty humiliating.
It would have been smart for Ukraine to negotiate something with Russia giving them the right to continue using that naval base.
Should Denmark also invade Crimea so that it has access to the Mediterranean?
What's Denmark got to do with anything? Denmark has zero interests in the Crimea.
This is incorrect on several levels. For starters there's the route you mentioned from the Atlantic through the Straits of Gibraltar. Maybe you discount that because it goes through NATO-controlled waters, but to get from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean you have to go through the Bosphorus, which is controlled by Turkey, also a NATO member. Second, Russia has several other naval bases on the Black Sea. The port of Novorossiysk, for example, is the largest port in the entire Black Sea, and one of the largest ports in all of Russia, and is not in Crimea.
> It would have been smart for Ukraine to negotiate something with Russia giving them the right to continue using that naval base.
They did in 2010: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kharkiv_Pact . Ukraine gave Russia a lease on the facility until 2047 in exchange for a discounted contract on natural gas. Russia unilaterally left the treaty after the annexation of Crimea 4 years later. As far as I can tell, the Russian Black Sea fleet has always had access to a naval base in Sevastopol, and at no point was this access threatened.
> In order to station an old carrier off the shore of Syria, they had to sail it from the Baltic, through the English Channel, round through the Straits of Gibraltar. That must have been pretty humiliating.
Their carrier is deployed with the northern fleet, and while it was built in Ukraine during the Soviet area it doesn't seem to have actually ever performed operations in the Black Sea, though it certainly could be moved there. I also don't see what about that is "humiliating".
Thanks - I am now better-informed.
> I also don't see what about that is "humiliating"
The ship's passage through the English Channel was constantly monitored by UK military jets, as well as by news reporters, who mocked the condition of that decrepit carrier. I don't know if Russian leadership actually felt humiliated, but I'd have been humiliated had it been me (I wouldn't have embarked on the voyage in the first place, unless I had a shiny new ship).
ayyy, the gymnastics
> I'm not defending...
nah, you're excusing
You can put it that way, if you like ad-hominem attacks based on forged "quotes". I'm actually pretty angry with Russian military incursions into their neighbours, and I'm glad they withdrew quickly from Kazakhstan.
But I think NATO should have disbanded when the Warsaw Pact disbanded. It has no business operating in e.g. the Middle East. The West has acted provocatively, and it's no surprise if Russia is provoked.