Comment by defrost | Hacker News Reader

Comment by defrost | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

When was this agreement drawn up and signed?

  The controversy regarding the legitimacy of eastward NATO expansion relates to the aftermath of the Revolutions of 1989, when the fall of Soviet-allied communist states to opposition parties brought European spheres of influence into question.

  Russian authorities claim that agreement on non-expansion of NATO to Eastern Europe took place orally and the alliance violated it with its expansion while the leaders of the alliance claim that no such promise was made and that such a decision could only be made in writing.

  Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, who participated in the 1990 negotiations, subsequently spoke out about the existence of a "guarantee of non-expansion of NATO to the east" inconsistently, confirming its existence in some interviews and refuting in others.

Among academic researchers, opinions on the existence or absence of a non-extension agreement also differ.

~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy_regarding_the_legi...

OTOH, I understand there was an actual drawn up agreement regarding Ukraine giving up post Soviet nuclear weapons, Russia agreeing to Ukranian autonomy and the US agreeing to provide secuirty for Ukraine.

Regardless of whether there is a drawn up agreement, still the expansion of NATO to the Russian borders is putting pressure on Russia I would assume, and can cause conflicts.

But yeah it would certainly help if they would make the agreement more official.

> if they would make the agreement more official.

It's not an agreement if its a thirty year old unconfirmed one sided report of an off record discussion.

Has anybody on the NATO side from the time reported this being talked about? Were any drafts of an actual agreement ever drawn up and leaked?

It's not only a narrative of Russia, there are also Americans like Jeffrey Sachs saying this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9x5E0ETyv8

And recently two Trump administration officials also brought this up:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQknBjzMnds

Russia is, was and won't be at risk of being invaded by NATO. That's pure fantasy.

NATO is a defensive alliance.

Well maybe that is what they say they are but maybe there is more going on, and I can imagine that Russia might consider that.

The trouble with this assertion is that it discounts Russia fantasies as unimportant, when in fact fantasies are the basis for all defense planning.

And it's not that hard to see why a military alliance created to counter Russian power would be the subject of Russian nightmares.

By that logic we should surrender because Russia has nukes and say they are willing to use them.

Or we should develop secret nuke capabilities and launch a first strike.

Russia lies extensively.

We can't moderate our behavior based on their irrationel fears.

Vietnam war started for defensive reasons.

Nobody wants to invade Russia. The only reason Russia and Putin are opposed to NATO expansion is because it stops them from being able to bully their neighbours. Calling that "putting pressure on Russia" is crazy.

Ok, but now we have a war going on for 3 years, and there is a threat for WW3, is that nice?

Russia started the war by invading Ukraine. Russia can end the war any time they want by simply moving all of their troops out of Ukraine and back behind their border.

Any concession to Russia means we are saying that it's ok for nuclear-armed states to invade their neighbours at will, and to expand their territory at will, because "oh no, ww3!".

That is unacceptable. That is unjust. There is exactly one guilty party in this conflict, and it is not Ukraine. We do not appease dictators who invade their neighbours.

Before I started delving into this topic, I also thought that Russia was just doing this because they are a crazy war machine. But after I looked into the history of it, I can understand better that Russia does have some reasons to feel threatened by NATO. And yeah, if you threaten a country, you can expect conflict.

We should rather go into conversation with Russia instead of ignoring their perspective and continue with things causing conflicts with them.

> you can expect conflict.

Ok, so who started the war?

Yeah Russia started the war, but the NATO expansion pressured them, and that was the responsibility of NATO.

But what's your point?

You've been explained why several times by now and you're just dismissing the argumenst with "well Russia is just defending itself".

Actions speak louder than words. You can justify with all the quotes you want, the point is that reality is before our eyes. I don't sympathize with dictators waging wars for 13 years over much smaller countries.

I'm not saying Russia is just defending itself. I'm saying there was an agreement between NATO and Russia which NATO broke. And since Russia is a superpower, it can start a war, and it can result in WW3. So it's maybe wise to try to make a deal to get peace.

Are you surprised a country with Russia as it's neighbour wants to join NATO? Especially since it has been an important part of the defense of the European union.

Putin has been stuck in the cold war since forever. His expansionist ideals have been visible since forever.

Of course they want NATO, but Russia doesn't want it, and considers it a threat.

I think the cold war never ended. And it's not just the Russians that are active in it.

How did the cold war bot end with the fall of the soviet union?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com