When George H.W. Bush promised the Russian leaders, as they agreed to pull 400,000 troops from East Germany to allow NATO expansion to include all of a reunited Germany, that NATO would not move one inch to the East, was he just joking? Given that NATO has since moved a thousand miles East and added 11 nations, Russia, unlike the US during the Cuban missile crisis, should simply ignore it? Was the Minsk agreement just a stall tactic by the west to allow NATO to gear up to add the Ukraine as suggest by Merkel? Are the 12000 killed ethnic Russians in the Donbas between 2014 and 2022 and the 4000 artillery rounds fired into the Donbas by Ukrainian forces during the week before the "unprovoked" Russian invasion accidental?
The Ukrainians have lost this war and I suspect the Russians have achieved everything they set out to accomplish. This can be added to the long list of US involvement in failed foreign conflicts where they haven't won any since WW2. NATO is out of artillery rounds and the Ukrainians are now starting to refuse to continue to be slaughtered as their losses to date have been 5 to 1 against the Russians.
Western leaders, certainly the Germans and Hungarians, should know all of this and are now groping with somehow saving face while allowing some kind of peace agreement or continuing the façade and escalating to something that could bring this disaster to every city in the west.
I take no sides in this conflict but the ethnic tribalism of this part of the world exemplified by ww1 which resulted in WW2 is cause to question the folly of jumping into battles that don't involve us.
After German invaded Poland, which itself followed on the German annexation of Czechoslovakia, and Britain and France declared war on Germany, many observers angrily denounced ... Britain and France. Hadn't they treated Germany unjustly in the peace settlement following the First World War? Hadn't they burdened Germany with terrible reparations? Hadn't they carved off German land to create Poland? Weren't ethnic Germans subject to persecution in Czechoslovakia and Poland, and wasn't Germany entitled to protect "her people"? Really, whose fault is the war? Britain and France. And when the Germans defeated France, well, it was only reasonable that the defeated Allies should sit down and negotiate terms that would re-establish European order on a more equitable basis...
Only after Germany proceeded to invade country after country, demonstrating to even the most pig-headed observer that Germany's leader was far more the cause of the calamity, did this nonsense fade. Then it was quietly forgotten.
Your tendentious presentation of the background to the war -- like that of the Kremlin -- has a certainty musty familiarity. But there's one big difference in the history as it is unfolding now: Ukraine wasn't quickly overrun by Russia's blitzkrieg, its leaders were not murdered, and Russia was not strengthened and emboldened. For that, we can thank the magnificent courage of the Ukrainian people. Whatever happens now, they have already won a great victory and made Europe and the world safer. Slava Ukraini, indeed.
But let's set all that aside. Instead, let's assume the background as you provided it here is entirely correct and complete. (It's not, by a long shot. But let's go with that.) You have provided not the slightest defence of Russia's invasion. None. International law is perfectly clear. Russia launched an aggressive, illegal war. It was a barbaric throwback to the pre-WWII era. And as if to underscore how depraved it war, the Russian government has waged its war with depraved tactics. War crimes. Crime against humanity. Even forced deportations of populations, a favourite move of Joseph Stalin.
If there is any justice in this world, Vladimir Putin will stand in the prisoner's dock at The Hague, a full record of his crimes will made, and those who made excuses will quietly forget their words.
I've heard of that promise and believed it myself. So I'm not contradicting your assertion. But there are credible people who say no such promise was given or implied. Here's one https://hls.harvard.edu/today/there-was-no-promise-not-to-enlarge-nato/ I've read others at various times. On balance, I now believe no such promise was given. There is no hard evidence of it. My guess is the Russians heard what they wanted to hear and Nato leaders believed Russia would eventually become more prosperous and democratic and less of a threat. Ambiguity is often essential for diplomacy. The key question is one of cause and effect. Did Nato expansion threaten Russia or did a threatening Russia expand Nato. It is certainly true that the cause/effect of the latest expansion is clear.
Doug, if I may, I would argue that this is an important issue in a larger discussion of relations between Russia and the West but it is essentially irrelevant here. If the West assured Russia NATO wouldn't expand, but it did, Russia would have a legitimate grievance. But so what? Were NATO forces massing in Ukraine, preparing to invade Russia? Only if the answer is "yes" would Russia have lawful grounds for attacking Ukraine. The answer is an empathic "no." Hence, Russia's invasion was aggressive act of war in violation of international law and the international order which has (mostly) kept the peace since the Second World War. And it must be punished accordingly. This is no different than following Germany's invasion of Poland: Many observers were actually quite sympathetic to Germany, feeling they had been unjustly treated, including by the severance of German land for the creation of Poland, and by the stranding of Danzig from the rest of Germany. Whatever you make of that view, it was NOT grounds for invasion and did not change the calculus of how the West should respond.
Dan, I agree completely. I'm sorry if I conveyed an impression I thought otherwise. I - no expert - entered the discussion with the narrow intention of showing that, arguably, there was no promise not to expand Nato. In a second comment conceded there might have been some deliberate ambiguity but added that Nato didn't push eastwards, it was drawn eastwards and I wondered, even if a promise had been given, had it been vitiated by Russia's - Putin's - aggressions and transgressions. In other words, he created the situation he complains of. I wish I could recall who said, 10 or 15 years ago, "Putin is tactically brilliant but strategically stupid".
But, having said all that small stuff, I ought to have made clear that nothing justifies the invasion and occupation. Nor does it change the West's calculus. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify my comments.
One can easily see why Putin has domestic approval for his "aggression" with the history of US / NATO fingerprints all over their encirclement and Ukraine's affairs.
Thank you ! this is so clear and succinct ! Now a side remark : I remember (living in EU) clearly that Hungarians were encouraged to resist RU invasion with tanks in 1956 (12 years old). They were hoping for support while trying to hold off the arrival of RU troops by primitive means. They hoped in vain. In fact help would have been available and was only 60-100km away. Years later I met an American military attaché at a reception at the German embassy in Ottawa. He felt in our discussion that I did not approve of the US ‘invasion’ of Iraq, and asked me to explain. My answer : Hungary was encouraged to resist and asked for help ---> no one came. Iraq did not ask --- you came. I feel that Putin was encouraged to move West by his “success” (not much reaction)in annexing Crimea.
Good points. I can't imagine the ethnic Russians in Crimea nor their cousins in Russia tolerating the loss of Crimea (purchased from the Ottoman Empire by Catherine the Great) once it became clear that The US was pulling the Ukraine into its sphere.
I don't have time to read the article today but I want to thank you for it. I've just glanced and can see that already that it will add to a lot to my understanding. There is one point tho' - regardless of what assurances were given - I think it's fair to say that Nato has not so much expand eastwards as has been drawn eastwards. I'm back on the cause/effect point because, even if assurances were given, they were effectively renouncing western aggression. Nato's expansion has been, from the perspective of the new nations, defensive. I guess, what I'm groping toward is whether Russian adventurism has vitiated any promise in any case?
This made me unfollow you end the proxy war now. Maybe 30% of funds actually make it to the front line the rest are laundered stolen etc. You have weapons meant for Ukraine in all parts of the world.
I'm rooting for Ukraine, and they are clearly the good guys in this conflict. But that does not imply that an already massively indebted America has the responsibility to gift them hundreds of billions of dollars -- though I'm perfectly fine with *selling* them arms.
Also, in terms of its importance to the world, Ukraine is no UK. A better analogy than UK in WWII is Vietnam in the 1960s. Vietnam was being overrun by communist invaders. Did we have a moral obligation to intervene to help stop them? I know that we did, but did the intervention serve our interests? Was it worth the cost?
I really appreciated this bit of history and its relevance to Russia’s war on Ukraine. This needs to be disseminated more widely. Bravo!!!
When George H.W. Bush promised the Russian leaders, as they agreed to pull 400,000 troops from East Germany to allow NATO expansion to include all of a reunited Germany, that NATO would not move one inch to the East, was he just joking? Given that NATO has since moved a thousand miles East and added 11 nations, Russia, unlike the US during the Cuban missile crisis, should simply ignore it? Was the Minsk agreement just a stall tactic by the west to allow NATO to gear up to add the Ukraine as suggest by Merkel? Are the 12000 killed ethnic Russians in the Donbas between 2014 and 2022 and the 4000 artillery rounds fired into the Donbas by Ukrainian forces during the week before the "unprovoked" Russian invasion accidental?
The Ukrainians have lost this war and I suspect the Russians have achieved everything they set out to accomplish. This can be added to the long list of US involvement in failed foreign conflicts where they haven't won any since WW2. NATO is out of artillery rounds and the Ukrainians are now starting to refuse to continue to be slaughtered as their losses to date have been 5 to 1 against the Russians.
Western leaders, certainly the Germans and Hungarians, should know all of this and are now groping with somehow saving face while allowing some kind of peace agreement or continuing the façade and escalating to something that could bring this disaster to every city in the west.
I take no sides in this conflict but the ethnic tribalism of this part of the world exemplified by ww1 which resulted in WW2 is cause to question the folly of jumping into battles that don't involve us.
After German invaded Poland, which itself followed on the German annexation of Czechoslovakia, and Britain and France declared war on Germany, many observers angrily denounced ... Britain and France. Hadn't they treated Germany unjustly in the peace settlement following the First World War? Hadn't they burdened Germany with terrible reparations? Hadn't they carved off German land to create Poland? Weren't ethnic Germans subject to persecution in Czechoslovakia and Poland, and wasn't Germany entitled to protect "her people"? Really, whose fault is the war? Britain and France. And when the Germans defeated France, well, it was only reasonable that the defeated Allies should sit down and negotiate terms that would re-establish European order on a more equitable basis...
Only after Germany proceeded to invade country after country, demonstrating to even the most pig-headed observer that Germany's leader was far more the cause of the calamity, did this nonsense fade. Then it was quietly forgotten.
Your tendentious presentation of the background to the war -- like that of the Kremlin -- has a certainty musty familiarity. But there's one big difference in the history as it is unfolding now: Ukraine wasn't quickly overrun by Russia's blitzkrieg, its leaders were not murdered, and Russia was not strengthened and emboldened. For that, we can thank the magnificent courage of the Ukrainian people. Whatever happens now, they have already won a great victory and made Europe and the world safer. Slava Ukraini, indeed.
But let's set all that aside. Instead, let's assume the background as you provided it here is entirely correct and complete. (It's not, by a long shot. But let's go with that.) You have provided not the slightest defence of Russia's invasion. None. International law is perfectly clear. Russia launched an aggressive, illegal war. It was a barbaric throwback to the pre-WWII era. And as if to underscore how depraved it war, the Russian government has waged its war with depraved tactics. War crimes. Crime against humanity. Even forced deportations of populations, a favourite move of Joseph Stalin.
If there is any justice in this world, Vladimir Putin will stand in the prisoner's dock at The Hague, a full record of his crimes will made, and those who made excuses will quietly forget their words.
I've heard of that promise and believed it myself. So I'm not contradicting your assertion. But there are credible people who say no such promise was given or implied. Here's one https://hls.harvard.edu/today/there-was-no-promise-not-to-enlarge-nato/ I've read others at various times. On balance, I now believe no such promise was given. There is no hard evidence of it. My guess is the Russians heard what they wanted to hear and Nato leaders believed Russia would eventually become more prosperous and democratic and less of a threat. Ambiguity is often essential for diplomacy. The key question is one of cause and effect. Did Nato expansion threaten Russia or did a threatening Russia expand Nato. It is certainly true that the cause/effect of the latest expansion is clear.
Doug, if I may, I would argue that this is an important issue in a larger discussion of relations between Russia and the West but it is essentially irrelevant here. If the West assured Russia NATO wouldn't expand, but it did, Russia would have a legitimate grievance. But so what? Were NATO forces massing in Ukraine, preparing to invade Russia? Only if the answer is "yes" would Russia have lawful grounds for attacking Ukraine. The answer is an empathic "no." Hence, Russia's invasion was aggressive act of war in violation of international law and the international order which has (mostly) kept the peace since the Second World War. And it must be punished accordingly. This is no different than following Germany's invasion of Poland: Many observers were actually quite sympathetic to Germany, feeling they had been unjustly treated, including by the severance of German land for the creation of Poland, and by the stranding of Danzig from the rest of Germany. Whatever you make of that view, it was NOT grounds for invasion and did not change the calculus of how the West should respond.
Dan, I agree completely. I'm sorry if I conveyed an impression I thought otherwise. I - no expert - entered the discussion with the narrow intention of showing that, arguably, there was no promise not to expand Nato. In a second comment conceded there might have been some deliberate ambiguity but added that Nato didn't push eastwards, it was drawn eastwards and I wondered, even if a promise had been given, had it been vitiated by Russia's - Putin's - aggressions and transgressions. In other words, he created the situation he complains of. I wish I could recall who said, 10 or 15 years ago, "Putin is tactically brilliant but strategically stupid".
But, having said all that small stuff, I ought to have made clear that nothing justifies the invasion and occupation. Nor does it change the West's calculus. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify my comments.
You may be right in that Bush may not have said those words in documented evidence but James Baker did along with others at the time. What was apparent from the documents ( https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early ) was the position of strength of the west in the negotiations and the underlying (deceitful?) intentions of future NATO expansion.
You missed a small detail in your backgrounder: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
True, but reading through these documents only reinforces the evidence of deceit involved in NATO expansion. https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2021-11-24/nato-expansion-budapest-blow-1994
One can easily see why Putin has domestic approval for his "aggression" with the history of US / NATO fingerprints all over their encirclement and Ukraine's affairs.
Thank you ! this is so clear and succinct ! Now a side remark : I remember (living in EU) clearly that Hungarians were encouraged to resist RU invasion with tanks in 1956 (12 years old). They were hoping for support while trying to hold off the arrival of RU troops by primitive means. They hoped in vain. In fact help would have been available and was only 60-100km away. Years later I met an American military attaché at a reception at the German embassy in Ottawa. He felt in our discussion that I did not approve of the US ‘invasion’ of Iraq, and asked me to explain. My answer : Hungary was encouraged to resist and asked for help ---> no one came. Iraq did not ask --- you came. I feel that Putin was encouraged to move West by his “success” (not much reaction)in annexing Crimea.
Good points. I can't imagine the ethnic Russians in Crimea nor their cousins in Russia tolerating the loss of Crimea (purchased from the Ottoman Empire by Catherine the Great) once it became clear that The US was pulling the Ukraine into its sphere.
I don't have time to read the article today but I want to thank you for it. I've just glanced and can see that already that it will add to a lot to my understanding. There is one point tho' - regardless of what assurances were given - I think it's fair to say that Nato has not so much expand eastwards as has been drawn eastwards. I'm back on the cause/effect point because, even if assurances were given, they were effectively renouncing western aggression. Nato's expansion has been, from the perspective of the new nations, defensive. I guess, what I'm groping toward is whether Russian adventurism has vitiated any promise in any case?
Great piece. Great analysis. Thank you.
This made me unfollow you end the proxy war now. Maybe 30% of funds actually make it to the front line the rest are laundered stolen etc. You have weapons meant for Ukraine in all parts of the world.
I'm rooting for Ukraine, and they are clearly the good guys in this conflict. But that does not imply that an already massively indebted America has the responsibility to gift them hundreds of billions of dollars -- though I'm perfectly fine with *selling* them arms.
Also, in terms of its importance to the world, Ukraine is no UK. A better analogy than UK in WWII is Vietnam in the 1960s. Vietnam was being overrun by communist invaders. Did we have a moral obligation to intervene to help stop them? I know that we did, but did the intervention serve our interests? Was it worth the cost?