> NATO marched eastward, which eventually provoked the Russians to launch a preventive war.
How can this be a convincing argument in the 21st century?
How can this be a convincing argument in the 21st century?
And remind me who forced Finland and Sweden to join NATO just a few months ago ?
Sure seems like they did this on their own volition given it passed their parliamentary processes.
Theres been a Chinese spy base in Cuba for two years at this point, and yet no invasion.
Russia has had its border with NATO extended greatly by this war, by Finland joining, and yet no war with Finland.
(In his 2015 lecture he contrasted 21st century people (the Washington Establishment) with 19th century people (people like himself and “the Chinese”).)
Basically the West including USA and some others promised that NATO would not “move one inch” eastward in return for German unification. That was under Gorbachev. That was only an oral agreement though and funnily enough Gorbachev now has denied that such an agreement was made… not that it matters that much, really.
Which is not true. https://hls.harvard.edu/today/there-was-no-promise-not-to-en...
> Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner
That list includes James Baker, his former boss.
[1] https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017...
> M.G.: The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a singe Eastern European country
https://www.rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbac...
But all of those declassified documents weigh heavier than his words.
Who’s next? Bush Sr.?
This is such a pig-headed and unreasonable stance that it doesn’t warrant a real response.
Let's see what Soviet foreign minister Shevardnadze had to say: https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/interview-with-e...
Denies that the subject even came up with Western representatives, Warsaw Pact leaders or Communist Party leadership. As he points out, nobody foresaw collapse of Warsaw Pact, so there was simply no reason to discuss anything like it. That would've made as much sense as discussing in 1999 what to build on World Trade Center grounds. Nobody knew that the WTC area would become a pile of rubble in two years' time.
Please don’t lie. Der Spiegel mentions Hans-Dietrich Genscher who said that “NATO will not expand to the east”—who is also mentioned in my link of course—and then Shevardnadze says that:
> Eventually, we agreed that a united Germany could be part of NATO under certain conditions. […] AN EXPANSION OF NATO BEYOND GERMANY’S BORDERS WAS OUT OF THE QUESTION.
All-caps is mine since people seem to be hard of hearing or something.
> As he points out, nobody foresaw collapse of Warsaw Pact, so there was simply no reason to discuss anything like it.
Oof, such a nice attempt at muddying the waters.
The intro question does not question the fact that NATO expansion was discussed at all (on the contrary it confirms it); it only asks why it wasn’t demanded in writing.
> So why didn't you get this commitment from NATO on paper?
Which was already indirectly stated by myself (I said “oral agreement, which I’m sure you can nitpick to death as well).[1]
So I see that you are trying to conflate the fact that non-expansion was assented to verbally with the apparent totally unrelated fact that Soviet bigwigs didn’t see the point of worrying themselves about getting any actual guarantees from the Western elites since apparently (them being short-sighted, or not-caring) that wasn’t a real threat or concern to them.
These things are completely unrelated. Shevardnadze has, through that interview, affirmed that the Westerners talked to them about non-expansion of NATO. And yet here you come and blurt out that he either wasn’t concerned about NATO expansion, isn’t concerned right now, or both. Huh? That doesn’t contradict anything that I’ve said and is just completely irrelevant.
>> SPIEGEL ONLINE: Was the eastward expansion of NATO ever discussed in the inner circles of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1990?
>> Shevardnadze: The question never came up.
>> SPIEGEL ONLINE: Nevertheless, the eastward expansion happened a few years later. Did you feel, at the time, that the German diplomats deceived you?
>> Shevardnadze: No. When I was the minister of foreign affairs in the Soviet Union, NATO's expansion beyond the German borders never came up for negotiation. To this day I don't see anything terrible in NATO's expansion.
Couldn't be more clear.
There's not a single Soviet representative who has said that yes, we had an agreement, and that it was violated. No paper trail of any kind either (discussion papers, meeting notes, personal diaries). It's a made up story.
> An expansion of NATO beyond Germany's borders was out of the question.
From your own link.
I don’t know what the hell he meant by “not came up for negotation”. Someone could tell me that I will definitely get five hot dogs for lunch and then I can later say that it “never came up for negotation” since I never cared about hot dogs to begin with. (What do I care whether he personally cared about Nato expansion or not? That’s irrelevant!) Dead politicians.
You’re just mincing words (“agreement”) at this point, which I have already addressed.
Thankfully he clarifies that by saying "the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact was beyond our realm of comprehension".
The USSR was hosting elite divisions and nuclear weapons in Poland at the time and didn't expect anything to change, what was there to discuss or negotiate?
The main question that came up was whether Americans would roll their tanks up to Polish border after German reunification, THAT is the "eastward expansion" they discussed.
So far no-one have disproved the fact that Westerns were talking at the Soviets about non-expansion. Which was my claim. That this Georgian didn’t care about it because he didn’t see any threat of expansion is irrelevant.
Thanks.
The decision for the U.S. and its allies to expand NATO into the east was decisively made in 1993. I called this a big mistake from the very beginning. It was definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990.
I take his word over yours.
> M.G.: The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility.
Which just confirms, that there was no such agreement.
But what Gorby said above is much more important than the simple lack of a written agreement.
Instead, Eastern Europe ditched the Russian empire of misery on the first opportunity and never looked back, and that's what he was so bitter about. He hoped that the West would prop up his crumbling colonial empire.
When it comes to any clear assurances, even Gorbachev says NO. Is there anyone from the Soviet side who has actually confirmed it or is it pure western self-flaggelation?
As pertains to this matter - I'll go with his version of the events and their significance.
You can go along with whatever you like.
It's not even his version. You've just cherry-picked a single sentence, attributed significance over all else, and ignore everything else he says, and what other contemporary participants have said, and the historic context of it all.
It's whatever you want it to be then, I suppose.
Look, I think we're done here. Read and cherry pick whatever you want, and go to town with it - as suits your fancy.
Do you have trouble reading? Clearly the agreement was completely non-binding and informal. This was stated from the start, multiple times.
I'll let Soviet foreign minister Shevardnadze explain it:
>> SPIEGEL ONLINE: In February 1990, Germany's foreign minister at the time, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, assured you that "NATO will not expand to the east," and that states like Poland and Hungary could never be part of the military alliance. Because the conversion had revolved mainly around East Germany, Genscher even became more explicit, saying that: "As far as the non-expansion of NATO is concerned, this also applies in general." According to reports, you replied that you believed everything he said. So why didn't you get this commitment from NATO on paper?
>> Shevardnadze: Times have changed. At the time we couldn't believe that the Warsaw Pact could be dissolved. It was beyond our realm of comprehension. None of the participating countries had doubts about the Warsaw Pact. And the three Baltic states, which are now part of NATO, were still part of the Soviet Union then. Eventually, we agreed that a united Germany could be part of NATO under certain conditions. For example, a national army limited to 370,000 members and Germany waives the right to nuclear weapons. An expansion of NATO beyond Germany's borders was out of the question.
>> SPIEGEL ONLINE: At the end of March 1990, Genscher and the then US Secretary of State James Baker, talked about the fact that there was interest among "central European states" about getting into NATO. You knew nothing of this?
>> Shevardnadze: This is the first I've heard of it.
>> SPIEGEL ONLINE: Did you have a conversation with your colleagues in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary about a possible eastward expansion of NATO in the spring of 1990?
>> Shevardnadze: No, that was never discussed in my presence.
>> SPIEGEL ONLINE: The German documents give the impression that Moscow counted on the dissolution of both the Warsaw Pact and NATO. Did you really think that would happen?
>> Shevardnadze: That may have been discussed after I resigned from the ministry of foreign affairs in December 1990. However during my time in office it was not.
>> SPIEGEL ONLINE: In May 1990, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev brought up the subject of the Soviet Union joining NATO during talks with the Americans. The Americans took that very seriously.
>> Shevardnadze: Gorbachev had that idea but he never took any realistic steps towards achieving this. Which is why it was never really discussed amongst the Soviet leaders.
>> SPIEGEL ONLINE: Was the eastward expansion of NATO ever discussed in the inner circles of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1990?
>> Shevardnadze: The question never came up.
>> SPIEGEL ONLINE: Did the subject play a role in the ratification process of the Two-Plus-Four agreement (where the signatories included the two Germanys and the four powers that occupied Germany after World War II) that unified Germany?
>> Shevardnadze: No, there were no difficulties whatsoever with the ratification process.
>> SPIEGEL ONLINE: Nevertheless, the eastward expansion happened a few years later. Did you feel, at the time, that the German diplomats deceived you?
>> Shevardnadze: No. When I was the minister of foreign affairs in the Soviet Union, NATO's expansion beyond the German borders never came up for negotiation. To this day I don't see anything terrible in NATO's expansion.
That’s fine. You either lack reading comprehension (see previous replies) or judge the material to be “not an agreement”.
And that’s okay. Because you don’t contest—or if you are you are failing at it—the claim that verbal statements about NATO non-expansion[1] were made by the Western representatives in the general direction of the Soviet representatives. Which was the claim that I have been proving ever since the first reply[2] to my comment.
[1] Choosing my words carefully here in order to not trigger your “agreement” firewall.
"Verbal statements" and "in the general direction" is an unconvincing attempt to turn history on its head.
Many things were said as the USSR was falling apart, but no-one from the Soviet side has ever elevated them to the level of an agreement that countries should abide by. Hence why Russia didn't protest when former Warsaw Pact countries joined NATO.
The narrative appeared 17 years later when Putin started looking for ways to isolate Georgia prior to invasion.
Of course these officials are not going to say that there was some formal agreement since there was none in the first place.
I have never said that there was a formal agreement. I have never said that the talks produced some kind of proof-of-agreement. I have never said that there was anything binding about it.
Now stop pestering me with this irrelevant side-topic that only you care about.
> The narrative appeared 17 years later when Putin started looking for ways to isolate Georgia prior to invasion.
“The invasion”. You’re supposed to use the definitive article here.
So it was non existent then some in-person informal not written down agreement that is non binding means literally nothing.
Even more so when the country this totally real "informal non-binding" agreement is with collapses and ceases to exist.