Russia - General Discussion.

I have no idea how true this but I recall reading somewhere that Russia was promised that NATO would not expand eastwards and that Russian participation in NATO was even discussed.
If Russia had indeed joined NATO, in the longer term what relevence would NATO have had and what incentive would the U.S. have had to maintain such a large and resourse extensive presence in Europe?

The Yeltsin years were seen by the West largely as a period when Russia "behaved". For Russians the Yeltsin years were a disaster, a period when Russia was weak, chaotic and unstable, others took advantage. Russia cooperated over many things, including supporting efforts to liberate Kuwait and other areas including nuclear disarmanent talks and Kosovo but from its perspective the West didn't reciprocate, instead it expanded eastwards.
 
Last edited:
As best as I can tell, Russians keep claiming they have documented promises of some nature made to Gorbachev by the then FRG Chancellor Helmut Kohl, leading to Soviet troop withdrawals from East Germany. However, apparently, neither the US nor NATO, nor anyone else, made any promises regarding NATO expansion on any level. As far as participation with NATO, Russia did participate as a nonmember for some time.

You might also find these interesting:

NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard | National Security Archive

Western leaders gave multiple assurances against NATO expansion to Gorbachev in 1990-1991 according to declassified American, Russian, British, Germans documents
nsarchive.gwu.edu nsarchive.gwu.edu
www.dw.com

Remembering history

The Berlin Wall may have fallen in 1989, but it was by no means clear that East and West Germany would come together. One key step in the process was a trip by the West German Chancellor to Russia on July 14, 1990.
www.dw.com www.dw.com
 
Last edited:
SolarWind said:
As far as participation with NATO, Russia did participate as a nonmember for some time.
Click to expand...
.
It participated in the "Partnership For Peace" initiative, if I recall correctly. The fall of the Soviet Union was supposed to have ushered in an era of peace and prosperity but it turned out differently. For many former Soviet citizens [not just Russians] it was a very traumatic period.
 
Hello guys!
I'm new to the forum as I have a huge interest in this subject and all strategic military matters. Glad to be here!
 

I can put it in this thread or China Geopolitical thread. However I put in this thread, since G7 recent ultimatum on Russia against Ukraine.

Either way China and Russia increasingly closing rank and strengthening (at least diplomatically) support for each other. Alliances in new cold war is gaining momentum.
 
Ananda said:
Alliances in new cold war is gaining momentum.
Click to expand...

Probably too early days for an ''alliance'' per see. A major stumbling black is that Russia and China have issues amongst themselves. Increased cooperation over various issues of mutual concern/importance is how I see it.

Back in 1999 at the height of the Kosovo war; I recalled hearing a report on radio saying that Russia and China had decided on strategic cooperation in light of certain American actions.
 
Perhaps the term of 'Allience of Convinience' more appropriate. With US closing rank with the Euro and AsPac traditional allies against both of them, what choice Russia and China then each other.

Even under USSR and common ideology, CCP always have independent motive that sometimes class with USSR. However both of them facing economic and diplomatic curtain being drawn by US and Allies, resource rich Russia, and Money-Industrial rich China seems facing more and more comfort toward another.

If they are become more solid to each other, perhaps we can also say 'Allliance of Western making'
 
They are not exactly friends or allies, but they will cooperate and possibly coordinate to resist the West's pressure and the spread of Western values. In case of a hot conflict with a peer or greater opponent, I expect the CCP to chicken out fairly quickly, which I wouldn't say about Russia. Other than that, they are just natural trade partners.
 
Last edited:
Often times, I see the West trying to sell the carrot and stick approach but has it occurred to the West that maybe the Russians are not rabbits and carrots won’t work?

SolarWind said:
In case of a hot conflict with a peer or greater opponent, I expect the CCP to chicken out fairly quickly, which I wouldn't say about Russia. Other than that, they are just natural trade partners.
Click to expand...
China’s geo-strategic thinking and approach is often misunderstood in the West. It is very, very wrong to think the CCP will chicken out (when the West is more likely to do so). Xi/Deng/Mao’s thinking is fundamentally different and there is some continuity in their approach — in an armed conflict, China’s leaders will seek off-ramps after the CCP achieved their goals. The problem : Can an American ally tolerate the wait? IMHO, America’s own allies will seek an off-ramp faster.

The PLA are willing to bear a high price in deaths to establish credibility — proved in the Korean War.

Detente and the Sino-Soviet split (assisted by Kissinger), deterred the Soviets from driving West. At that time, the Chinese were allied with the West and if NATO had gone to war with the Soviets, the Chinese would have gone to war on the side of the West. They are not chickens.

swerve said:
What do you mean, friends? It's a wholly transactional relationship.
Click to expand...
True.

When the Western caricature a rising China and a possibly recidivist Russia, in this manner, this act strips away context of their common interest alignment. This is a geo-strategic mistake based on a lack of understanding of their often limited goals. Russian and Chinese coordinated flights into Japanese and Korean ADIZs demonstrate alignment and it serves its own purposes.
 
Last edited:
OPSSG said:
Often times, I see the West trying to sell the carrot and stick approach but has it occurred to the West that maybe the Russians are not rabbits and carrots won’t work?
Click to expand...
The Russians are rabbits, rabbit is almost their alter ego. It's not the carrots that they dislike, it's the carrot to stick ratio that they have a problem with and they are very open and straight forward about it. They don't just want assurances, but oaths written into laws of proper carrots with not too many sticks.

Thank you for clarifying China's thinking, it's very helpful.

OPSSG said:
Detente and the Sino-Soviet split (assisted by Kissinger), deterred the Soviets from driving West. At that time, the Chinese were allied with the West and if NATO had gone to war with the Soviets, the Chinese would have gone to war on the side of the West. They are not chickens.
Click to expand...
In the West this could be considered betrayal and treachery, and extreme taboo in Russian culture. And a big problem for any actual alliance between Russia and China.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The two proposed agreements from Russia:
AGREEMENT ON MEASURES TO ENSURE THE SECURITY OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION AND MEMBER STATES OF THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION - Министерство иностранных дел Российской Федерации (mid.ru)
A few quotes:
The Parties shall guide in their relations by the principles of cooperation, equal and indivisible security. They shall not strengthen their security individually, within international organizations, military alliances or coalitions at the expense of the security of other Parties.

The Parties shall settle all international disputes in their mutual relations by peaceful means and refrain from the use or threat of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

The Parties shall not create conditions or situations that pose or could be perceived as a threat to the national security of other Parties.

The Parties shall exercise restraint in military planning and conducting exercises to reduce risks of eventual dangerous situations in accordance with their obligations under international law, including those set out in intergovernmental agreements on the prevention of incidents at sea outside territorial waters and in the airspace above, as well as in intergovernmental agreements on the prevention of dangerous military activities.
Click to expand...
Does this mean that Russia will stop all cyberattacks on all NATO countries? Great news! Will they also stop meddling with democratic processes in NATO countries? Will they instruct their ally Belarus to stop using immigrants in their hybrid warfare?

The Parties reaffirm that they do not consider each other as adversaries.
Click to expand...
This is actually very positive, and a change of tune again from Putin. Previously (was it in 2008?) Russia has declared NATO an enemy of Russia.

All member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization commit themselves to refrain from any further enlargement of NATO, including the accession of Ukraine as well as other States.
Click to expand...
I don't think NATO will accept this. Perhaps NATO will give some vague statement about Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova not being eligible for the next X years?

The Parties that are member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization shall not conduct any military activity on the territory of Ukraine as well as other States in the Eastern Europe, in the South Caucasus and in Central Asia.
Click to expand...
I would not mind, but only if Russia and her "allies" agree to do the same. Please leave Ukraine, Georgia, etc.

TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION ON SECURITY GUARANTEES - Министерство иностранных дел Российской Федерации (mid.ru)

Will be interesting to see how NATO and US react.

This affects first and foremost Europe, but Europe is almost completely powerless vs Russia. It will be up to Russia and the US to reach an agreement. Europe should have rebuilt the military capabilities after 2008, and even more so after 2014. Instead Europe is sleep walking into a number of potential disasters, this is just one of them.
 
Vivendi said:
The Parties that are member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization shall not conduct any military activity on the territory of Ukraine as well as other States in the Eastern Europe, in the South Caucasus and in Central Asia.
Click to expand...

This is the obvious poison pill clause. It would mean NATO withdrawing all support from the Baltics, who currently do not have their own airforce, and potentially from Poland, Romania and Bulgaria. Whilst those countries could technically remain in NATO, without having the ability to forward station assets from other NATO states they would be in a much weaker position. Russia could probably walk into the Baltics at will.

What would Russia's offer be - to not station troops within 100 miles of its borders? I doubt it, and even if they did they'd find it very easy to break that promise before NATO could react.
 
I was going to write a response to each of those proposed articles but there's really no point. It is basically a demand for NATO/Western capitulation to Russia and a re-establishment of Warsaw Pact borders, the sort that might be accepted if her armies stood on the destroyed remains of enemy capitals.

Only article 2, regarding more communication and open dialogue has anything that might be agreed to.

This seems to have more to do with Putin's personal reaction to the collapse of the Soviet Union than a serious proposal. A dangerous individual looking to restore a fallen empire's former glory.
 
Per the National Interest, Russia's new armaments Tsirkon and Poseidon could make their neutralization of opponent CSGs easier. Although I am not sure whether this is truly relevant today, as Russia now seems concentrated in their bordering regions in Europe and Asia. Still, these weapon systems seem to have been decades in development.

nationalinterest.org

Why Russia Never Stops Tracking U.S. Aircraft Carrier Strike Groups

Here’s What You Need to Remember: Recent Russian assessments have been more upbeat, reflecting a confidence that the Kremlin’s latest slew of weapons projects has given it an edge over CSG’s. The Carrier Strike Group (CSG) is among the most potent weapons in the U.S. arsenal, capable of...
nationalinterest.org nationalinterest.org
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top