Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Who told you that?Polish politicians are toxic, their Russophobia is deranged, they never seem to have a problem with the Germans who were responsible for killing six million Poles.....
First of all, we are now in no way “denying” Ukraine “the opportunity to defend itself,” let alone “withdrawing recognition of its sovereignty,” and I remind you it is not now in NATO!
Indeed, we very mistakenly announced as early as 2008 under George Bush that Ukraine & Georgia “will join NATO” — at a time when even the majority of people in those countries did not favor NATO membership. This was provocative madness, as many reasonable statesmen pointed out at the time.
Though it is not in NATO we are now financing most of Ukraine’s government and military with billions of dollars. NATO countries are sheltering its women and children refugees. We are providing modern training, modern weapons and super-valuable intelligence and communications equipment. It seems you are as hung up on “NATO membership” as is Russia.
The original verbal promises to Gorbachev and others that the U.S. would not expand NATO eastward worked well in mollifying Russia and encouraging it to withdraw its own troops from Eastern Europe, allowed the unification of Germany, and ultimately won independence for Ukraine. It encouraged the initial break-up of the Soviet Union and at least opened up the possibility of dramatic democratic change within Russia. Breaking those oral promises and expanding NATO to the East had precisely the opposite effect.
Russian borders have moved far to the West as a result of WWII, as have Polish borders. Russia has no further claim on Polish lands. So what is it with Polish authoritarianism and paranoia toward Russia today?
I do not defend Russian imperial instincts, pan-Slavism, Putin’s interfering in Ukraine, or his invasion. The huge Czarist and then Soviet Empires, like the giant existing Russian Federation, for historical reasons developed under conditions extremely hostile to democracy, and Russian political culture is today still profoundly reactionary, statist and hostile to “rule of law.” The “oil curse” is another factor at work there.
Russia should have been handled more carefully by the West. Perhaps it would have made no difference. All we can say is Russian state paranoia runs deep and our policies did not help. Having NATO membership and its “guarantee of protection” in case of war may ironically be giving countries like Poland a dangerous sense of invulnerability and encouraging their own desire to “rectify historical injustices” against Russia. Russian aggression in Eastern Europe — with or without Ukraine (or hypothetically Poland) being in NATO and on the front line — would bring a mobilization of NATO countries and force them to be more responsible for their own self defense. They are already realizing they have been too complacent.
The idea of a “neutral” Austria and Finland worked even when paranoid Stalin was alive. It is hardly inconceivable that a neutral Ukraine would have been a better goal for U.S. foreign policy, and even for Ukraine itself.
But we are where we are. The past cannot be changed. We must defend Ukraine against this Russian attempt to destroy it. Crimea is slightly different. There remains — we have all but ignored this except in the case of Kosovo — still an internationally recognized “right of self determination” — which means that there are real possibilities for a diplomatic settlement over Crimea which is not aimed at satisfying either all Ukrainian or all Russian claims.
What makes you think so? aside from the inherent clashes on this Forum between Biden and Trump followers, blaming single individuals?The Russians can no longer “win the war” but at best only inherit a burden, even if they somehow get a favorable peace deal after 2024. U.S. rulers, especially if Republicans win the next election, will eventually decide to cut back on helping the Ukrainians,...
But how do you straighten out Ukraine's trade problems if they lose Crimea?
Because Ukraine will not be able to trade with its normal trade partners without Crimea. Then there's the issue of fresh water in Crimea....it's totally controlled by Ukraine. And if Ukraine can't trade then Crimea gets no fresh water and we are right back to the start of the war all over again.
First, according to Gorbachev, the topic of not allowing former soviet states was never discussed in 1990, so there was no oral assurance given on that subject. Gorbachev in a 2014 interview:First of all, we are now in no way “denying” Ukraine “the opportunity to defend itself,” let alone “withdrawing recognition of its sovereignty,” and I remind you it is not now in NATO!
Indeed, we very mistakenly announced as early as 2008 under George Bush that Ukraine & Georgia “will join NATO” — at a time when even the majority of people in those countries did not favor NATO membership. This was provocative madness, as many reasonable statesmen pointed out at the time.
Though it is not in NATO we are now financing most of Ukraine’s government and military with billions of dollars. NATO countries are sheltering its women and children refugees. We are providing modern training, modern weapons and super-valuable intelligence and communications equipment. It seems you are as hung up on “NATO membership” as is Russia.
The original verbal promises to Gorbachev and others that the U.S. would not expand NATO eastward worked well in mollifying Russia and encouraging it to withdraw its own troops from Eastern Europe, allowed the unification of Germany, and ultimately won independence for Ukraine. It encouraged the initial break-up of the Soviet Union and at least opened up the possibility of dramatic democratic change within Russia. Breaking those oral promises and expanding NATO to the East had precisely the opposite effect.
Russian borders have moved far to the West as a result of WWII, as have Polish borders. Russia has no further claim on Polish lands. So what is it with Polish authoritarianism and paranoia toward Russia today?
I do not defend Russian imperial instincts, pan-Slavism, Putin’s interfering in Ukraine, or his invasion. The huge Czarist and then Soviet Empires, like the giant existing Russian Federation, for historical reasons developed under conditions extremely hostile to democracy, and Russian political culture is today still profoundly reactionary, statist and hostile to “rule of law.” The “oil curse” is another factor at work there.
Russia should have been handled more carefully by the West. Perhaps it would have made no difference. All we can say is Russian state paranoia runs deep and our policies did not help. Having NATO membership and its “guarantee of protection” in case of war may ironically be giving countries like Poland a dangerous sense of invulnerability and encouraging their own desire to “rectify historical injustices” against Russia. Russian aggression in Eastern Europe — with or without Ukraine (or hypothetically Poland) being in NATO and on the front line — would bring a mobilization of NATO countries and force them to be more responsible for their own self defense. They are already realizing they have been too complacent.
The idea of a “neutral” Austria and Finland worked even when paranoid Stalin was alive. It is hardly inconceivable that a neutral Ukraine would have been a better goal for U.S. foreign policy, and even for Ukraine itself.
But we are where we are. The past cannot be changed. We must defend Ukraine against this Russian attempt to destroy it. Crimea is slightly different. There remains — we have all but ignored this except in the case of Kosovo — still an internationally recognized “right of self determination” — which means that there are real possibilities for a diplomatic settlement over Crimea which is not aimed at satisfying either all Ukrainian or all Russian claims.
www.brookings.edu
I think the Brookings Institute article is childish and based on misleading linguistic distinctions of no real import. As for Gorbachev, first of all he was hardly the only person involved. Widely blamed in Russia for allowing himself to be “hoodwinked” by Westerners on this issue., the old man here was trying to defend his honor and the West too, so he made a silly, self-serving and misleading distinction between “NATO expansion” and expanding “NATO military facilities and authority.”First, according to Gorbachev, the topic of not allowing former soviet states was never discussed in 1990, so there was no oral assurance given on that subject. Gorbachev in a 2014 interview:
The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.”
Gorbachev continued that “The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been obeyed all these years.” To be sure, the former Soviet president criticized NATO enlargement and called it a violation of the spirit of the assurances given Moscow in 1990, but he made clear there was no promise regarding broader enlargement.
Did NATO Promise Not to Enlarge? Gorbachev Says "No" | Brookings
Russian President Vladimir Putin has made it well known his antipathy towards NATO, claiming the Alliance took advantage of Russian weakness after the collapse of the Soviet Union in violation of promises allegedly made to Moscow by Western leaders. Steven Pifer argues that no such promises were...
Common sense should tell you that since the NATO Charter states every European country is eligible to join NATO if it applies and meets certain criteria, so it would have been impossible for NATO to have made such assurances, and the fact that there is no contemporaneous record of such discussions would tell an honest person that Putin lied.
Before Russia's 2008 invasion of Georgia, there was little interest in Ukraine to join NATO and little interest in the US to see Ukraine in NATO, but after Russia's invasion of Georgia, which Putin tried to justify with the same lies you has used to try to justify his two invasions of Ukraine, there was a sudden increase among Ukrainians in joining NATO, and Ukraine applied and Bush supported that application, but sadly, too many Europeans were still deluded into thinking peace with Russia was possible. Had Ukraine been admitted in 2008, there would have been no 22014 or 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.
NATO was not out recruiting nations to join; it was responding to applications from former soviet states that didn't trust Russia according to its Charter.
Since NATO has posed no threat to Russia's security since 1991, the only reason Russia has to object to former soviet states joining NATO is that it prevents Russia from attacking them, and that is the reason why it is important for them to join NATO.
A much better overall picture of what happened in reality and what is still relevant today is portrayed in this brief summary and in the four short linked articles attached to it. These articles also reveal some of the more recent archival evidence that shows much more of what was said and “promised” in those heady days:The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all … I say this with full responsibility. Not a singe Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either … 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.
As I pointed out earlier, this is an absurd and even infantile argument. Ukraine’s people were not in favor of joining NATO in 2008. Ukraine was not at all ready governmentally or militarily to join or meet absolutely minimum requirements for joining NATO. Indeed, it was not even ready to sign an economic agreement with the EU. It was later to re-elect — in a fair election no less — the very corrupt Yanukovych government that was subsequently overthrown by the Maidan movement!Had Ukraine been admitted in 2008, there would have been no 2014 or 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Why?
What is our strategic interest in Ukraine?
... Russia is careful enough not to mess with NATO block. ...
So, they'll just raise the level of violence from 'special operation' to, say, 'local war', and what are you going to do then? And what are you going to do with, say, possible uprisings in Odessa and Kharkov?You still don't get it. A 'draw' will be no thanks to Russia, but 'despite of' it.
Let's not get hysterical. That's the mistake the West made in 2008, when Putin invaded Georgia, and made again in 2014 when Putin invaded Ukraine, and it is, of course the mistake the World made when Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia,
and now you want to make that same mistake again, now?
Putin is a dictator and a liarPutin doesn't want to occupy Ukraine, he wants to denazify it and trash their Western backed military so they will never be a threat ever again, and that is what is happening right now, you should thank god Putin is a reasonable man or Ukraine would be a pile of rancid rat shit by now.
Putin apologists hold Ukraine to a higher standard of democracy than they do the russiansAs I pointed out earlier, this is an absurd and even infantile argument. Ukraine’s people were not in favor of joining NATO in 2008. Ukraine was not at all ready governmentally or militarily to join or meet absolutely minimum requirements for joining NATO. Indeed, it was not even ready to sign an economic agreement with the EU. It was later to re-elect — in a fair election no less — the very corrupt Yanukovych government that was subsequently overthrown by the Maidan movement!
What's bad about that? Doesn't create or recreate have a positive connotation?His goal is to recreate the old Soviet Union
You war mongers love your death and killing, as long as it isn’t you.
Zelensky: Ukrainian loss could force US to choose between ‘collapse of NATO’ or war
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Thursday that a loss to Russia could ultimately force the U.S. to choose between the “collapse of NATO” or going to war. “If Ukraine would lose, if Russi…thehill.com
I know it is scary, but that may be the only choice left. Putin is not going to stop at Ukraine, if he occupies the country.
Your problem is with some others you believe your own propaganda, there is zero evidence Putin wants to bring the Soviet Union back, and the Man is the elected President of Russia, it's called Democracy.Putin is a dictator and a liar
His goal is to recreate the old Soviet Union
