Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Loud Whispers]

Also consider that for Russians who saw the USSR collapse, the Americans promised to halt NATO encirclement of the USSR in exchange for the Soviets withdrawing from eastern europe and dismantling the Warsaw pact. This in turn led to nationalist revolts and the dissolution of the USSR. Many of these newly independent states then joined NATO to stave off any future Russian invasions, given a long history of Russian invasions.
From the Russian perspective, this was an absolute betrayal by the West, carving off vast swathes of Russian conquered territories whilst encircling Russia even more. Putin is one such man who believes this, as are his advisers. We don't trust them, they don't trust us.
With that said a Russian invasion of the European Union would be suicidally foolish. It would also run the risk of creating a solid pan-European identity (nothing does that quite like an outside foe), which would save the EU from rising euroscepticism. All things considered the Russians have more to fear from Europe than Europe has to fear from Russia. All the same, caution is always advisable. Putin is a tricky leader to read. I suppose it comes with the KGB training.

[Sheb]

Oh yeah, the famous myth of Amercia promising not to expand NATO. I guess something doesn't have to be true to be a reason for Russia's distrust.

[LordSlowpoke]

trust isn't granted, sheb

shit's earned

[Loud Whispers]

Oh yeah, the famous myth of Amercia promising not to expand NATO. I guess something doesn't have to be true to be a reason for Russia's distrust.

Considering how Putin writes their history books, yes. Though looking it up, there's truth and lies. Coming from NATO's mouth:

Thus, the debate about the enlargement of NATO evolved solely in the context of German reunification. In these negotiations Bonn and Washington managed to allay Soviet reservations about a reunited Germany remaining in NATO. This was achieved by generous financial aid, and by the “2+4 Treaty” ruling out the stationing of foreign NATO forces on the territory of the former East Germany. However, it was also achieved through countless personal conversations in which Gorbachev and other Soviet leaders were assured that the West would not take advantage of the Soviet Union’s weakness and willingness to withdraw militarily from Central and Eastern Europe.

However, there were no legally binding treaties promising that NATO wouldn't expand
http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2014/Russia-Ukraine-Nato-crisis/Nato-enlargement-Russia/EN/index.htm

[Sheb]

Actually, I've read an interview by Gorbatchev at some points, and he claims that the possibility of further expension simply wasn't discussed, as it seems so improbable.

[Sergarr]

Oh yeah, the famous myth of Amercia promising not to expand NATO. I guess something doesn't have to be true to be a reason for Russia's distrust.

Considering how Putin writes their history books, yes. Though looking it up, there's truth and lies. Coming from NATO's mouth:

Thus, the debate about the enlargement of NATO evolved solely in the context of German reunification. In these negotiations Bonn and Washington managed to allay Soviet reservations about a reunited Germany remaining in NATO. This was achieved by generous financial aid, and by the “2+4 Treaty” ruling out the stationing of foreign NATO forces on the territory of the former East Germany. However, it was also achieved through countless personal conversations in which Gorbachev and other Soviet leaders were assured that the West would not take advantage of the Soviet Union’s weakness and willingness to withdraw militarily from Central and Eastern Europe.

However, there were no legally binding treaties promising that NATO wouldn't expand
http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2014/Russia-Ukraine-Nato-crisis/Nato-enlargement-Russia/EN/index.htm

This "no legally binding treaties" shit is EXACTLY the reason why current Russia does not trust the West in the slightest.

[Descan]

Wot. International relations are entirely about legally binding treaties. :v It's pretty much the only way to tie down the other guy (WHOEVER they are) so they can't dick you. And even then, they still dick you. Would anyone here trust Gorbachev if he had said "We won't let our nukes fall out of our control!" without a treaty/agreement spelling out exactly how they would do that?

[Sergarr]

"International relations" and "trust" are two completely different axises of relationships.

I guess that's the core difference in between our cultures - in Russia, a good promise built on mutual trust is worth much more than a "legally binding treaty".

[mainiac]

This "no legally binding treaties" shit is EXACTLY the reason why current Russia does not trust the West in the slightest.

Yeah whatever doublethink helps you.

[Descan]

I'm not sure if you were informed, but the West and Russia at that time were just winding down a cold war. You know, the one that's usually capitalized as the Cold War? Russia was still the Soviet Union at that point! Whatever trust there was, I don't think it'd be enough for 'no diplomatic expansion and acceptance of petitioning countries into a military alliance' to be something you spit and shake hands on.

[Descan]

Not to mention, mutual trust is between people. The Commander of NATO (and, let's be real here, the President most likely has some sway on the decision) changes, so while you might have on person who you made an agreement with, and can trust to uphold it, the next fellow might well go "Feh, I never said that," and be absolutely correct, as he has nothing legally tying his hands from discarding a 'promise based on mutual trust.'

[Sergarr]

Yes, it should've been obvious that we couldn't have trusted the NATO after the Cold War. But as far as I've listened to people who lived in the period, they trusted the NATO and the West to help them build a new, happier world together. People seriously believed that. USSR has managed to make a lot of people in it very naive. And then 90s happened, and most of these people have reversed their opinions.

I know that blaming the current conflict on one dictator figure is very convenient, but it's simply not true. Most people in Russia simply want revenge on the liberals in our government and in our country, on Europe and on USA for collectively betraying their expectations on the post-USSR landscape. The fact that these expectations weren't very realistic doesn't matter.

[Baffler]

Surely you all can see, at least, that "we weren't legally bound to do this! We led you to believe that we wouldn't, but you can't be mad that we did because it wasn't legally binding!" does not a strong argument make.

[Sergarr]

On the other news, I've noticed that Saakashvili has been appointed on a place bordering Transnistria.

Uh-oh.

[smjjames]

On the other news, I've noticed that Saakashvili has been appointed on a place bordering Transnistria.

Uh-oh.

Interesting that Ukraine has a former Georgian president as a governor. Wiki says current governor of Odessa though. Not sure if that borders transinitria and I don't get the 'uh-oh'.

Edit: 'Current' as in 'freshly elected' anyway.

Edit2: Apparently governors in Ukraine are appointed rather than elected as they are in the US.

Edit4: Reading the wiki further, I'm not 100% sure on the legality of the whole thing.... it just doesn't seem quite right to me. Maybe it's just me projecting American onto it, lol.