Don’t Accept Putin’s Version of History

[Glaucus]

Don’t Accept Putin’s Version of History

For the record: No treaties prohibiting NATO expansion were ever signed with Russia. No promises were broken. Nor did the impetus for NATO expansion come from a “triumphalist” Washington. On the contrary, Poland's first efforts to apply in 1992 were rebuffed. I well remember the angry reaction of the U.S. ambassador to Warsaw at the time. But Poland and others persisted, precisely because they were already seeing signs of the Russian revanchism to come.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Well, you've come a long way. Just a few weeks back you were in denial about NATO's eastward expansion and now you not only acknowledge it but present an article that states it was indeed policy. Joly good. Of course, you couldn't accept it when I told you but from a life long anti-communist who married into the political class of Poland, you accept it? Fair enough. Whichever presenter makes it more palatable to you. It's still the same story.

 

[Glaucus]

I was in denial of NATO's expansion? Sorry, but no.

Anyway, here's the Coles' notes of what that article says:

1. NATO never signed a treaty with Russia that NATO would never expand eastwards.
2. NATO did expand eastwards but in all cases the nations that joined were not fast tracked and in fact received some resistance at first.
3. NATO didn't use the new nations closer to Russia as forward bases. In fact, no new bases were built in the new member states.
4. New NATO members have repeatedly asked for major NATO bases but have been denied.
   
5. The new NATO members feared and continue to fear Russian aggression.
6. Other nations closer to Russia have been denied membership (Georgia & Ukraine)
   
7. NATO has declined slightly for a number of years although that might be changing due to recent events.

How that is in any way inconsistent with anything I said about NATO in the recent past is beyond me.

What's most interesting about your post is that you seem to have no objections to the article itself. That's kinda weird because when I say those same things you seem to get all worked up.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

1. NATO never signed a treaty with Russia that NATO would never expand eastwards.

I think that already came up - the old "you never got it in writing". Is it fair to say that Russia thought they had an assurance? Quite probably. On one day they said there would be no move east, on the next they said whatever happens in East Germany is up to the Germans? Could they reasonably expect that the two positions were compatible? I think so. But should they have got it in writing? I think so but lot's of agreements don't happen in writing but merely as "understandings" ... which later get reneged on.

NATO didn't rush into other countries of course except for bombing into existence and picking the government of the new country of Kosovo which instantly got a major new US base. And then the colour revolutions came and along with them the new governments begging to join NATO. Fair enough. Colours are nice.

But however you expand it, it's still expanding and Russia is being surrounded by a US owned alliance. That's simply a fact.

Imagine if the Warsaw pact was still in force and the US was facing expansion into South America? How much would they care if the Soviets had bought themselves governments to "freely" sign up to the deal because they (quite rightly) feared US aggression? Might you not find that provocative?