NATO return to Cold War force structure

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 minute ago, Pavel Novak said:

Isn't this just a myth? Guarantee for Ukraine was written and signed. But that NATO not going east is at best some remark proposed behind close door but not reaching written agreement - like many other options which never becomed reality.

Yes.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/

We now have a very authoritative voice from Moscow confirming this understanding. Russia behind the Headlines has published an interview with Gorbachev, who was Soviet president during the discussions and treaty negotiations concerning German reunification. The interviewer asked why Gorbachev did not “insist that the promises made to you [Gorbachev]—particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East—be legally encoded?” Gorbachev replied: “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.

One can say, we disappointed Russia, which assured itself we meant something else. But Gorbachev was quite clear, no, we did not break any agreement, because no agreement, other than forces on the territory of East Germany, was made.

 

This is clear, and always has been clear. Except in Moscow, where they have turned this into another 'stabbed in the back' myth to justify their arms buildup. Which considering even Putin agreed to NATO expansion, has always been suspect and hypocritical.

[ink]

26 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Tajikstan, all got partnership for peace. Urbanoid is quite right. It was a policy to make it look like NATO was taking an interest, without putting any real effort in. As can be seen by the results in all these places.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partnership_for_Peace

Like I said, it means different things in different countries. In Serbia, for example, it means membership in all but name (and the nicer things that go with actual membership).

But if Serbia were to experience a Ukraine situation, much of the way the armed forces do stuff would just snap into alignment with NATO. Aaand, Serbian officers who've been through various NATO training experiences often go on to lobby the government (in various over- and underhand ways) for greater NATO involvement in the country's military... And will eventually lobby for full membership one day when that becomes palatable to the Serbian people.

If you don't look below the surface, NATO looks like such a warm and fuzzy organisation... But then...

[Stuart Galbraith]

Yeah, and I think NATO likes it that way. They keep their finger in lots of pies, and dont have to tell anyone to piss off when they ask about joining. It is imho, essentially a talking piece, that doest really account for a damn thing. It didnt for Ukraine, very clearly.

I think, if Serbia faced exactly whats being done to Ukraine (and there are some indications that the Balkans is going to be the target of Russian destabilisation operations, I think you are on your own. Im sorry, I dont think anyone in NATO has any serious interest in going back there in anything but a minor peacekeeping role. They have enough to do to handle Eastern Europe.

Oh, im sure NATO lobbying goes on. That doesnt mean it wouldnt reverse itself lickety spit as soon as it is faced with challenges to actually do something concrete.

[Perun]

@Pavel Novak @urbanoid @Stuart Galbraith

And what is this:

How Gorbachev was misled over assurances against NATO expansion

https://natowatch.org/newsbriefs/2018/how-gorbachev-was-misled-over-assurances-against-nato-expansion

[sunday]

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early

Quote

NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard

Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner

Slavic Studies Panel Addresses “Who Promised What to Whom on NATO Expansion?”

Washington D.C., December 12, 2017 – U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).

The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels. 

The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”

President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2]

(...)

Quote

(...)

As late as March 1991, according to the diary of the British ambassador to Moscow, British Prime Minister John Major personally assured Gorbachev, “We are not talking about the strengthening of NATO.” Subsequently, when Soviet defense minister Marshal Dmitri Yazov asked Major about East European leaders’ interest in NATO membership, the British leader responded, “Nothing of the sort will happen.” (See Document 28)

When Russian Supreme Soviet deputies came to Brussels to see NATO and meet with NATO secretary-general Manfred Woerner in July 1991, Woerner told the Russians that “We should not allow […] the isolation of the USSR from the European community.” According to the Russian memorandum of conversation, “Woerner stressed that the NATO Council and he are against the expansion of NATO (13 of 16 NATO members support this point of view).” (See Document 30)

Thus, Gorbachev went to the end of the Soviet Union assured that the West was not threatening his security and was not expanding NATO. Instead, the dissolution of the USSR was brought about by Russians (Boris Yeltsin and his leading advisory Gennady Burbulis) in concert with the former party bosses of the Soviet republics, especially Ukraine, in December 1991. The Cold War was long over by then. The Americans had tried to keep the Soviet Union together (see the Bush “Chicken Kiev” speech on August 1, 1991). NATO’s expansion was years in the future, when these disputes would erupt again, and more assurances would come to Russian leader Boris Yeltsin.

Now, one does not know what to think!

[urbanoid]

And yet Gorbachev himself said it was not discussed at all.

Not that the countries interested in joining NATO would be bound even if such a promise was made, as it was not made by them. Indeed, it would have been one of those promises that would have been wiser to break than keep, which would also be immoral to boot if looked at from that angle.

[Perun]

So did assurances happened or not

[Stuart Galbraith]

11 minutes ago, Perun said:

@Pavel Novak @urbanoid @Stuart Galbraith

And what is this:

How Gorbachev was misled over assurances against NATO expansion

https://natowatch.org/newsbriefs/2018/how-gorbachev-was-misled-over-assurances-against-nato-expansion

So you cite a website that is clearly dedicated to criticism of NATO, and unsurprisingly dont quote what Gorbachev said at all. Why am I not surprised?

After all, he was the one in the room. He ought to know, right? He was even criticial of NATO expansion, vociferously. So it would have been trivially easy to protect his reputation and say 'They promised they wouldnt!' But honest cove that he was till the end, he said there was no promises. And indeed, he was completely right. Any promises were purely about Eastern Germany. A fact that even Putin seemingly recognised once upon a time, because he raised absolutely no objections about the Eastern European states joining when NATO asked him. And they did ask him, contrary to the narrative.

 

 

[sunday]

Looks like the primary source for that Gorbachov statement has been found, but to say there is nuance would be an understatement. Link to the interview is contained in this article on the brookings.edu website:

https://www.rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbachev_i_am_against_all_walls_40673.html

Quote

Mikhail Gorbachev: I am against all walls
OCT 16 2014 MAXIM KÓRSHUNOVRBTH

(...)

RBTH: One of the key issues that has arisen in connection with the events in Ukraine is NATO expansion into the East. Do you get the feeling that your Western partners lied to you when they were developing their future plans in Eastern Europe? Why didn’t you insist that the promises made to you – particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East – be legally encoded? I will quote Baker: “NATO will not move one inch further east.”

M.G.: The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. 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. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context. Kohl and [German Vice Chancellor Hans-Dietrich] Genscher talked about it.

Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled. 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 observed all these years. So don’t portray Gorbachev and the then-Soviet authorities as naïve people who were wrapped around the West’s finger. If there was naïveté, it was later, when the issue arose. Russia at first did not object.

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. With regards to Germany, they were legally enshrined and are being observed.

Underlined mine

Edited June 4 by sunday

[sunday]

13 minutes ago, Perun said:

So did assurances happened or not

Seems Gorbachov thinks there were implicit assurances.

[urbanoid]

So not even a violation of a promise, as there was no promise, but the violation of the spirit... of the atmoshpere of the meeting and a perceived vision of the future in general? Not much to stand on here.

[Stuart Galbraith]

One can put it down to a misunderstanding, by one side or the other, or even both. But the fact remains, there was not ONE written agreement saying NATO wouldnt, or couldnt expand. The only agreememnt was they couldnt go to East Germany, and even now, they have not. That East Germany became a strategic irrlevance with the availability of Poland was not something Russia could have predicted, but then, neither could NATO.

I also have to say, its a bit rich the usual folks here, lambasting Britain and America for not supporting Poland and Eastern Europe in the aftermath of WW2  in many other  Tanknet threads, are now lambasting all of NATO (implicitly Britain and America too) in the aftermath of the cold war for doing exactly that. I mean, make your ferking minds up already.

 

[bojan]

5 hours ago, Martineleca said:

You're saying the 1885 Serbo-Bulgarian war meant to re-subjugate the latter to Russian rule after a mere seven years of independence didn't happen?

Not just conspiracy theorist, but someone who rewrites history in order to fit it in the current narative.

Milan, our moron of the king that has started that shitshow had (un)official Austro-Hungarian, not Russian blessing for that endeavor. And it was Austria, not Russia who saved his ass afterward and Serbia from losing territory. So how it could be that was to "re-subjugate the latter to Russian rule", when Russia was against that war and against Milan in general, and extremely pro-Bulgarian at that time (Treaty of San Stefano Bulgaria*, vs Vienna congress Bulgaria...)?

*For those that don't know distinction, this is a Bulgaria that Russia pushed for:

 

Edited June 4 by bojan

[sunday]

12 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

So not even a violation of a promise, as there was no promise, but the violation of the spirit... of the atmoshpere of the meeting and a perceived vision of the future in general? Not much to stand on here.

Now you are Stuarting. If that was not formally discussed, by anyone, as there was no explicit desire by any of the Warsaw Pact countries to join NATO, but there were promises about the extension of NATO military structure, that would have been enough for Gorbachov.

Anyway, that is enough for a Russian to be very suspicious, even paranoid, about the future intentions of future NATO countries leadership.

 

Edited June 4 by sunday

[urbanoid]

1 minute ago, sunday said:

Now you are Stuarting.

Anyway, that is enough for a Russian to be very suspicious, even paranoid, about the future intentions of future NATO countries leadership.

 

And we've always had every reason to be paranoid about Russian designs for what they call 'a near abroad' and were fully justified to seek security guarantees as we saw fit.

[sunday]

2 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

And we've always had every reason to be paranoid about Russian designs for what they call 'a near abroad' and were fully justified to seek security guarantees as we saw fit.

Original post modified: 

Yes, Poland has reasons to be paranoid.

But are those reasons enough to risk the existence of the whole human race because some Russian land in Ukraine?

Edited June 4 by sunday

[urbanoid]

I assure you that here on the Eastern flank even as NATO members with security guarantees from several nuclear powers we are still worried about possible intentions of even present leadership of Russia, let alone possible future one. That's why we applied to join even in 1990s, under the assumption that Russia never changes its nature* and that the Russian weakness is temporary, so we better use this window of opportunity to gain external guarantees.

*And indeed, it doesn't, we saw them meddling in the Caucasus and Moldova even in the early 1990s, helping create unrecognized breakaway states, to create instability (another major export commodity of Russia, along with the hydrocarbons) that could be then exploited to maintain some influence. Yanayev putsch also created an impression and likely contributed to the change of Western perception towards NATO enlargement.

I'm pretty sure that there was a will among political class in the V3 to join Western structures even in 1989/90, but as Gorbachev was discussing things with the West, the USSR still existed and it was waaay to early to state such desires openly. OTOH the idea was at least floated even before the last Russian soldiers left Poland (IIRC 17 Sep 1993).

[Stuart Galbraith]

28 minutes ago, sunday said:

Now you are Stuarting. If that was not formally discussed, by anyone, as there was no explicit desire by any of the Warsaw Pact countries to join NATO, but there were promises about the extension of NATO military structure, that would have been enough for Gorbachov.

Anyway, that is enough for a Russian to be very suspicious, even paranoid, about the future intentions of future NATO countries leadership.

 

Ah, you just said he was right, nice one.

If it wasnt discussed, it wasnt discussed. I wouldnt buy a house without a contract, why would Russia buy a deal without it being signed on paper? If it wasnt signed, it didnt happen.

And it couldnt happen, because nobody envisaged the collapse of the USSR are precipitately as arrived, least of all the Russians, or their disappearance back to Russia from East Germany. I daresay they would have had an agreement lock stock and barrel over German reunification if they were suddenly aware that Ukraine and Belarus were going to go independent. Well, its their own fault, maybe they shoudlnt have collapsed so spectacularly and gave themselves a chance to get territorial agreements. Once again, not NATO's fault.

Russians are always suspicious. Sometimes they have justification, lets be fair about that. And very often they dont.

[Stuart Galbraith]

29 minutes ago, sunday said:

Original post modified: 

Yes, Poland has reasons to be paranoid.

But are those reasons enough to risk the existence of the whole human race because some Russian land in Ukraine?

So what you are saying is, lets throw Poland under the bus, so we retain the lifestyle we have become accustomed to?

And you are one of the primary individuals that lambasts Britain for abandoning Czechoslovakia and Poland!

[urbanoid]

30 minutes ago, sunday said:

Yes, Poland has reasons to be paranoid.

But are those reasons enough to risk the existence of the whole human race because some Russian land in Ukraine?

Land that they themselves decided wasn't Russian anymore when the USSR was dissolving, in a country that they gave security guarantees to in 1994 already as Russian Federation, including its borders, which they subsequently violated.

One could say that the trail of broken promises, written ones at that, is much longer and much more serious coming from Russia. Frankly, they can eat shit by this point.

[sunday]

11 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

I assure you that here on the Eastern flank even as NATO members with security guarantees from several nuclear powers we are still worried about possible intentions of even present leadership of Russia, let alone possible future one. That's why we applied to join even in 1990s, under the assumption that Russia never changes its nature* and that the Russian weakness is temporary, so we better use this window of opportunity to gain external guarantees.

*And indeed, it doesn't, we saw them meddling in the Caucasus and Moldova even in the early 1990s, helping create unrecognized breakaway states, to create instability (another major export commodity of Russia, along with the hydrocarbons) that could be then exploited to maintain some influence. Yanayev putsch also created an impression and likely contributed to the change of Western perception towards NATO enlargement.

I'm pretty sure that there was a will among political class in the V3 to join Western structures even in 1989/90, but as Gorbachev was discussing things with the West, the USSR still existed and it was waaay to early to state such desires openly. OTOH the idea was at least floated even before the last Russian soldiers left Poland (IIRC 17 Sep 1993).

Ok, you have reasons to be paranoid.

Russians too.

Perhaps there could be a solution, built upon neutral countries, that could assuage both paranoid tendencies?

[sunday]

2 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

Land that they themselves decided wasn't Russian anymore when the USSR was dissolving, in a country that they gave security guarantees to in 1994 already as Russian Federation, including its borders, which they subsequently violated.

One could say that the trail of broken promises, written ones at that, is much longer and much more serious coming from Russia. Frankly, they can eat shit by this point.

Problem of referenda is that they are snapshots, and situations change with time.

I think that if the people of Donetsk and Donbass really, really wanted to follow Elenski neocon Russophobia, then the Ukrainian army would have not needed to keep bombing those two pieces of land since 2014.

[seahawk]

3 minutes ago, sunday said:

Ok, you have reasons to be paranoid.

Russians too.

Perhaps there could be a solution, built upon neutral countries, that could assuage both paranoid tendencies?

Or find a security solution for Europe that includes all nations in Europe but not those from other continents?

[txtree99]

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Right, so agreed, Russia has nothing to do with Ukraine, Belarus, or the Baltic states anymore. Im down with that.