Russia - General Discussion.

[STURM]

These grievances are mostly self-imagined or self-inflicted.

Nonetheless those grievances are there, they exist and are the reason why Europe is facing the most serious crisis since 1945. We can continue insisting that Russia and only Russia is to blame all we want but it didn't change the fact that until Russia's grievances are addressed and compromises made, the potential for conflict will always be there.

If you're suggesting [I think you are] that Russia is fully at fault and that NATO/the West is completely blameless then I would have to disagree. Things don't happen in a vacuum and it isnt only NATO/ the West which has security concerns, strategic interests and insecurities to watch out for or manage.

Russia didn't want it to join NATO it shouldn't have annexed Crimea and started a war in Eastern Ukraine

The signs that the Ukraine was intent on joining NATO or would eventually be offered membership were there way before Russian troops even stepped foot it in the Crimea or eastern Ukraine. NATO had also already admitted certain forner Warsaw Pact countries into its ranks way before Russia was seen as aggressive and provocative they way it is now.

Bringing up alleged comments by a Secretary of State doesn't advance Russia's position one bit.

I doubt if it was the writer's intention to advance anyone's cause. He was merely giving the narrative of what occurred since the end of the Cold War, what makes the Russians tick and why Russia is doing what it's doing. Bear in mind that how the West perceives things can be fundamentally different from how it's seen in Russia.

 

[STURM]

Russia has invaded & been invaded many times. How did Finland become part of Russia? Or Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, western Ukraine, Crimea, Belarus, the Caucasus & (for over 100 years) central Poland? Russia invaded them.

As well as Central Asia and the Caucasus.At one point during the 'Great Game' period the Russians even contemplated driving onto India.

 

[Feanor]

I've posted this before, but I don't think that Russia has genuine grievances regarding NATO or Europe. These grievances are mostly self-imagined or self-inflicted.

Russia's grievance is primarily that it was excluded from the post-Cold War arrangement. Instead of being treated as an equal major power at the table it was treated as an outsider and a pariah. Whether you think this is genuine or not is a separate question. And the main point is not Russia's grievances, but Russia's fears of NATO expansion and of being subject to aggressive soft and hard power action.

When people talk about Russia having red lines over Ukraine joining NATO, it's like saying Muslim fundamentalists have red lines over seeing women walk around without veils or wearing trousers. Doesn't really what they think, they don't have a veto. Ukraine is an independent, sovereign state. If Russia didn't want it to join NATO it shouldn't have annexed Crimea and started a war in Eastern Ukraine.

This argument is non-sense. Ukraine made it's big for NATO long before 2014. As did much of the rest of Eastern Europe. There is nothing modern day Russia could have reasonably done to prevent this. It was an inevitable reaction to things that took place pre-1991.

Bringing up alleged comments by a Secretary of State doesn't advance Russia's position one bit. Everyone knows that the US is a democracy and that mere words of one politician cannot bind a future administration, especially when the US itself does not run an organisation like NATO.

But that raises the question, how to trust anything anyone says. It's very convenient to be able to dismiss promises made by previous administrations, but it also means that things said by today's administrations are equally unreliable. Today the US says they have no intent to invade Russia, tomorrow it all changes. Remember, Russia-Soviet leadership made major steps to dismantle the Soviet empire based on statements made by western politicians. Statements that included promises of NATO non-expansion. Now NATO is in eastern Europe and is pushing into the FSU states. What incentive is there to believe anything the west tells you? What are any promises or assurances worth?

You can't lie to Russian-Soviet leadership about NATO expansion, and then pretend the grievances are imaginary when Russo-Soviet leadership made it clear in 1990 that fears of NATO expansion are a concern.

 

[Feanor]

More than it's invaded others?

Russia has invaded & been invaded many times. How did Finland become part of Russia? Or Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, western Ukraine, Crimea, Belarus, the Caucasus & (for over 100 years) central Poland? Russia invaded them.

The idea of Russia against the west is a new one. It always used to be multiple countries fighting each other, in multiple combinations. The Russian principalities played that game as enthusiastically as any others, & once Moscow became dominant & absorbed the others, so did Russia. It fought Britain, it was allied to Britain, it fought France, it was allied to France, it fought Prussia, it was allied to Prussia, it fought Austria, it was allied to Austria . . . .

Pre-1945 there was no "the West" to speak of. Post WWII the USA managed to rally most of the developed world around itself to oppose the perceived existential threat of communism. The legacy of this arrangement continues today, despite the changes in the international realities. Finland specifically though, wasn't a country to be invaded. It was a province of Sweden. And the back and forth push-pull between Russia and Scandinavia over control an independent exit to the Baltic sea goes back to the times before Ivan IV.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Russia's grievance is primarily that it was excluded from the post-Cold War arrangement.

Russia was treated fairly reasonably given the events of the Cold War. Don't forget, the USSR was not dismembered by outside forces, Russia essentially declared itself independent of it.

For one, NATO countries waived through Russia taking over the USSR's seat on the UN Security Council. That was a huge deal, and Russia's former opponents could have tried to block it if they'd wanted. Russia was also admitted to the WTO and World Bank - the former after Russia had invaded Georgia and only two years before it annexed Crimea.

Ukraine made it's big for NATO long before 2014.

It was far from guaranteed that it would get in, not least because between 2010 and 2014 Ukraine had a pro-Russian president.

But that raises the question, how to trust anything anyone says.

If we're talking about just words, you can choose to trust what people say on the basis of what their administration is likely to do, but not what another government will do in the future. That's why countries sign treaties.

Even the Russians will have understood this. Khrushchev tore up Stalin's handbook and then Brezhnev changed tack again - in a one party state where someone could with some credibility say they should have consistent policies over a long period of time.

Autocracies and dictatorships regularly apply double standards to us. They complain when we come up with new policies following elections on the basis they're used to "policy stability" and long term planning, and then they unilaterally change policies affecting us when convenient. It's ridiculous to accept that way of doing business.

You can't lie to Russian-Soviet leadership about NATO expansion

Even if we agree that James Baker said everything he was alleged to have done regarding the long-term future - and there is no evidence I've seen that he did - he had no standing to make such promises because he could not keep them. He was a part of a government that by law was limited to a maximum of 8 years in power. Any reasonable person would have known he could only give an indication of US policy at that time.

It's not Baker's' fault that Bush Senior lost the 1992 election and that Bill Clinton backed former Warsaw Pack countries joining NATO, or that Bush Junior agreed to a further expansion. The US is a democracy. Its governments can't be bound by secret "understandings" given by previous administrations and not supported by Congress. This is an incredibly important point, Secretaries of State are ultimately responsible to Congress and not the other way around.

As a real-world example, you are a Super Moderator, but you cannot promise a user they will never be banned or moderated because - even if you had the power to give them immunity - there is no guarantee you will be a moderator here for as long as that user was here.

 

[Feanor]

Russia was treated fairly reasonably given the events of the Cold War. Don't forget, the USSR was not dismembered by outside forces, Russia essentially declared itself independent of it.

For one, NATO countries waived through Russia taking over the USSR's seat on the UN Security Council. That was a huge deal, and Russia's former opponents could have tried to block it if they'd wanted. Russia was also admitted to the WTO and World Bank - the former after Russia had invaded Georgia and only two years before it annexed Crimea.

You're mixing together piles of events from different time periods into one narrative. Russian-Western relations in the 90s are on thing. ~2000-2008 are another. 2008-2014 are a third period. 2014-present are a fourth. Given just how interested the West was in having the USSR gone, I suspect that relatively minor concessions like granting Russia to be the inheritor of the USSR's diplomatic arrangements wasn't much of a sacrifice. Remember the USSR owed a lot of money and was under a lot of arms limitation treaties, including treaties on propagation of arms. Denying Russia the UN Security Council seat would have opened the door on many unpleasant possibilities.

It was far from guaranteed that it would get in, not least because between 2010 and 2014 Ukraine had a pro-Russian president.

I don't believe Yanukovich was pro-Russian. I believe he presented himself that way. In reality, like all the other corrupt oligarchs, he was pro-lining his own pocket. His electoral base was in the South and the East so he had to play nice with Russia and he was willing to make some concessions on key issues. But even under him Ukraine continued discussions on NATO membership, just did it behind closed doors.

If we're talking about just words, you can choose to trust what people say on the basis of what their administration is likely to do, but not what another government will do in the future. That's why countries sign treaties.

Even the Russians will have understood this. Khrushchev tore up Stalin's handbook and then Brezhnev changed tack again - in a one party state where someone could with some credibility say they should have consistent policies over a long period of time.

Autocracies and dictatorships regularly apply double standards to us. They complain when we come up with new policies following elections on the basis they're used to "policy stability" and long term planning, and then they unilaterally change policies affecting us when convenient. It's ridiculous to accept that way of doing business.

I'm not sure who you're responding to here. This is at best tangentially related, so I'm going to leave it alone unless you would like to clarify. I understand policies change, but in this case a very distinct attempt was made to create an impression in the minds of Soviet-Russian leadership on NATO expansion. This impression has turned out to be blatantly false.

Even if we agree that James Baker said everything he was alleged to have done regarding the long-term future - and there is no evidence I've seen that he did - he had no standing to make such promises because he could not keep them. He was a part of a government that by law was limited to a maximum of 8 years in power. Any reasonable person would have known he could only give an indication of US policy at that time.

It's not Baker's' fault that Bush Senior lost the 1992 election and that Bill Clinton backed former Warsaw Pack countries joining NATO, or that Bush Junior agreed to a further expansion. The US is a democracy. Its governments can't be bound by secret "understandings" given by previous administrations and not supported by Congress. This is an incredibly important point, Secretaries of State are ultimately responsible to Congress and not the other way around.

I've posted this before, I'll post it again. Note the list of names. It wasn't one promise by one person.

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

Here's a piece on the subject.

NATO's Eastward Expansion: Is Vladimir Putin Right?

Vladimir Putin insists that the West cheated Russia by expanding NATO eastward following the end of the Cold War. Is there anything to his claims? The short answer: It's complicated.

www.spiegel.de

Jack Matlock, who was the U.S. ambassador to Moscow at the time, has said that "categorical assurances" were given to the Soviet Union that NATO would not expand eastward

Roland Dumas, who served as the French foreign minister in 1990, would later say that a pledge was made that NATO troops would not advance closer to the territory of the former Soviet Union.

And here's a piece on the document found by a researcher confirming that certain statements were indeed made.

(S+) Nato-Osterweiterung: Aktenfund von 1991 stützt russische Version

Russland behauptet seit Jahrzehnten, die Nato-Osterweiterung verstoße gegen westliche Zusagen nach dem Mauerfall. Nun ist ein bemerkenswertes Dokument aufgetaucht.

www.spiegel.de

Here's a photo of a page out of that document (scroll down, it's in English).

Log in

Your life is the best story! Just start your blog today!

diana-mihailova.livejournal.com

 

[ngatimozart]

He is admitting himself all they are going on are "indications" and his "senses". The indications are no more than Russia moving troops in when they said they were moving them out. You can put whatever value you like on President Biden's "senses".

Officials citing US intelligence: Russia's military pullback a ruse

U.S. officials have obtained intelligence that Russia's announced military pullback from Ukraine's border was a deliberate ruse to mislead the United States and other world powers, four officials said Thursday,

www.postguam.com

That's cutting it very fine playing it on semantics and one word, taken out of context. Not acceptable.

 

[jeffb]

Despite what was said previously nothing changes the fact that if Russia pursued diplomacy over force its neighbours wouldn't be clamouring to join a defensive alliance to ensure their continued freedom. All the words in the world can't make up for their own actions which has now pretty much led them down a path where every turn is looking like a loss for Putin.

I have a very hard time empathising with Russia over what they believe was promised when para 1 of the Budapest Memorandum says what?...

 

[STURM]

Russia's grievance is primarily that it was excluded from the post-Cold War arrangement. Instead of being treated as an equal major power at the table it was treated as an outsider and a pariah. Whether you think this is genuine or not is a separate question. And the main point is not Russia's grievances, but Russia's fears of NATO expansion and of being subject to aggressive soft and hard power action.

This is something the writer of the article touched upon.

Putin, of course, takes an entirely different point of view. He believes that the Americans conspired to break up his country and encourage the creation of a separate country called Ukraine. We are now in a situation where the animosity between Moscow and Washington over NATO’s future and the existence of an independent Ukraine has become central to the future of peace in Europe. As Gates observes, Putin’s embrace of the strategy of securing Russia’s near abroad is seen in his actions in Belarus, Moldova, Transnistria, Georgia, the 2020 Armenia–Azerbaijan conflict, Kazakhstan and now—most dramatically—Ukraine

On another note the statement by Ukraine's President the Ukraine is Europe's ''shield'' against the Russian military is understandable given the pressure he's under but his statement that NATO has practiced a ''policy of appeasement'' towards Russia is questionable.

 

[STURM]

I have a very hard time empathising with Russia over what they believe was promised when para 1 of the Budapest Memorandum says what?...

It's not about empathising with anyone but trying to understand why Russia is doing what it's doing, rather than just sticking to the NATO narrative. It's also not about appropriating blame or adopting the view that one side is solely responsible for all that's gone wrong because although that may feel good for some and feeds into an accepted narrative, it doesn't solve anything and provides a distorted picture.

Things don't happen in a vacuum or out of the blue. Whatever one's personal opinions are Russia is reacting to a chain of events that stretches back as far as the 1990's. Also, various former Warsaw Pact countries looked at NATO membership way before NATO had significant tensions with Russia.

 

[Todjaeger]

It's not about empathising with anyone but trying to understand why Russia is doing what it's doing, rather than just sticking to the NATO narrative. It's also not about appropriating blame or adopting the view that one side is solely responsible for all that's gone wrong because although that may feel good for some and feeds into an accepted narrative, it doesn't solve anything and provides a distorted picture.

Things don't happen in a vacuum or out of the blue. Whatever one's personal opinions are Russia is reacting to a chain of events that stretches back as far as the 1990's. Also, various former Warsaw Pact countries looked at NATO membership way before NATO had significant tensions with Russia.

That second paragraph is key. IMO Russia is reacting to event chains which got started well before the breakup of the Soviet Union in the 90's, and some of these event chains could probably be traced back to before the creation of the Soviet Union.

Another thing which I find striking is how often it seems that people refer to Russian security concerns and how these seem to need to be taken into consideration, but often at the same time is seems as though the surrounding nations and/or peoples security concerns about Russia are felt to be irrelevant.

 

[STURM]

Another thing which I find striking is how often it seems that people refer to Russian security concerns and how these seem to need to be taken into consideration, but often at the same time is seems as though the surrounding nations and/or peoples security concerns about Russia are felt to be irrelevant.

Agreed but it's a practice which can be argued isn't restricted to Russia. Some are more equal then others and at various times in recent history big powers have done what they needed to do, in line with their interests, without regards to other, smaller, countries.

 

[the concerned]

I still Don't get this what security concerns does Russia actually have. With the world's most lethal Nuclear arsenal no country would be stupid enough to openly attack Russia and that includes the US and China

 

[Arji]

Another thing which I find striking is how often it seems that people refer to Russian security concerns and how these seem to need to be taken into consideration, but often at the same time is seems as though the surrounding nations and/or peoples security concerns about Russia are felt to be irrelevant.

Personally, I think the people suggesting that Russian security concern should be taken into account said so not for any sympathy for Russia, rather because Russia, whilst not to the extent of the Soviet Union, is still possessing a powerful military. Yes, smaller nations too have their security concern, but only Russia can actually lash out and has the potential to cause significant damage. The impression I get is if there's a discussion in the group regarding security of the whole group, but they purposefully ignore an individual. This individual is Russia, who has his own concerns but is otherwise left out of the discussion. The point is, it's unwise to simply ignore the concerns the man with a gun in the room.

 

[STURM]

the concerned,

Then perhaps you should do some reading up online issue, including events which took.place following the end of the Cold War and other issues. The U.S and China also have security concerns and both are nuclear powers. Not all security issues can be solved by virtue of being a nuclear power.

 

[the concerned]

I am sorry I am no military expert but why keep going on about the cold War. What did Russia expect how many Nations were actually part of the Warsaw pact voluntarily did they honestly think people were going to take a chance. As far as I am concerned their actions in Ukraine have proven every country that joined NATO after the cold War was wise. Finally sorry if I break rules but feel that this is not much more than extortion it's winter in Europe and everyone has their heating on so why not create a crisis to push prices up.

 

[Arji]

I still Don't get this what security concerns does Russia actually have. With the world's most lethal Nuclear arsenal no country would be stupid enough to openly attack Russia and that includes the US and China

See, by that logic, the US should be totally A-OK with a soviet leaning regime in central and south America, like Cuba. From what I gather from the various discussions online, from the Russian perspective, at least the policy maker anyway, NATO is this big boogeyman, similar to Communist to America in the Cold war. Whether the perception is valid or not is another discussions entirely, but it makes sense to me, you wouldn't want such a "hostile force" so close to your capital.

Geographically, if there is ever an invasion of Russia, with Ukraine being a part of NATO. NATO could launch a drive towards Moscow, and a push to the east from Donetsk area could cut off Russia from her oil-rich territory. Whether NATO would invade in the first place is another discussion entirely, but to the Russian, I think it's irrelevant as the threat is existential in nature.

Though this is only my opinion from observing several discussions on the matter.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

The signs that the Ukraine was intent on joining NATO or would eventually be offered membership were there way before Russian troops even stepped foot it in the Crimea or eastern Ukraine. NATO had also already admitted certain forner Warsaw Pact countries into its ranks way before Russia was seen as aggressive and provocative they way it is now.

Those former Warsaw pact states have been aware of Russian aggression decades before '91. The Soviet collapse should not have, and did not, create an atmosphere where everything's now fine and dandy, and there's no more beef.

Their desire to get western protection was unchanged by the collapse, and was and still is overwhelming.

They are independent countries after all - sovereign. It is their decision to join NATO. Unlike the days of the Soviet Union, you don't see American tanks rolling in Baltic streets days before admission. And those who chose not to join (not Baltic but European in general), did not face any threats of sanctions or anything else.

This is a recurring theme for Russia - Those from whom its control slips away, sprint to the west for protection.

 

[Ananda]

NATO has the rights to not accept any new East European admission, however continue to expand despite they know it will create negative reaction from Russia sooner or later.

Everything is two side, just like a coin. Can't just take NATO and Western point of view alone. So both side take similar responsibility to not let this thing goes hot.

 

[Arji]

Ultimately, I think the west is stuck between deciding whether to prevent a war or to promote their own value of rule of law and democracy and opposing authoritarianism. They don't want a war, but at the same time, they can't be seen appeasing an authoritarian state. Lots of people in western forum often compares any compromise as similar to the appeasement policy of WW2, and as such also pushing for a strong stance.