NATO commits to future Ukraine membership, drums up aid

[Tigerace117]

You dodged. Be honest about it.

It was a request for a name or title and not a paragraph. So again - "How do you describe the nation that once was Eastern Germany between the years of 1949 and 1990 then please? Did they voluntarily become a Soviet State?"

The first question could be answered with a maximum of 4 words and the second question requires a simple yes/no response.

Please try again.

I have repeatedly addressed your question. You not liking my answer doesn’t change that facts.

 

[Slavister]

This is very interesting and I read through many of the source materials. And it appears the situation is far more complicated than what the Washington Post suggests. The argument Russians have been making have far greater weight than I thought, but it appears there is still significant disagreement among scholars about the extent of these assurances though, and I think a big part of this is the context in which these discussions took place (the Soviet Union had not yet collapsed).

I think what is far more important are the discussions with Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union, because to the extent assurances were made, I find it less persuasive that the West somehow betrayed present-day Russia, because these assurances were made to a government that no longer exists. I think our conversations with present-day Russia are far more important.

Read this article:

Promises Made, Promises Broken? What Yeltsin Was Told About NATO in 1993 and Why It Matters

Surely the Kremlin watched with no small amount of bitterness last Friday as NATO’s heads of state and government gathered for dinner at Warsaw’s

warontherocks.com

Thanks for the link. I read all of it. I think it's in line with Gorbachev-centered and then Yeltsin-centered links I had mentioned as well.

I disagree with "these assurances were made to a government that no longer exists" approach, as I believe Russia and West both see Russia effectively inheriting all agreements made with Soviet Union. For example, Russia had assumed and after ~25 years paid off all foreign debt from the Soviet Union. It would have been much easier to just say, 'Oh sorry, new country now...' (which is what USSR did with pre-communist Tsarist debts), or even 'We'll pay a part of that and other 14 former USSR Republics should pay their fair share'. And it's not just debt. Nuclear related agreements and all other kinds of cooperation was proceeding under assumption of Russia taking over exactly where USSR left it.

In any case, as both your and my links showcase, Yeltsin, let alone most of the other Russian officials from both left and right, DID always want to have NATO NOT expand East. They could not do much about it though, and the West at worst misled and at best sugar-coated this expansion. Either way, both Gorbachev and Yeltsin came to believe NATO was not going to expand (and later, was not going to expand any time soon) and were upset when the opposite happened. Putin decided he can do more than just stand by and watch Georgia and Ukraine going that way too, invading both once NATO expansion became plausible for these two.

Of course I am not justifying what Putin did - killing civilians and destroying a country over a NATO membership is a very disproportional response, especially when sitting on all those nukes. He probably knows it himself, which is why he had to come up with other reasons (denazification!) to support his cause.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Nuclear related agreements and all other kinds of cooperation was proceeding under assumption of Russia taking over exactly where USSR left it.

Putin violated the 1994 Budapest Memorandum.

Ukraine willingly de-nuclearized in 1994-1996 in exchange for security assurances from Russia/US/Britain and this allowed Russia to invade in 2014.

At the time, Ukrine had the 3rd largest nuclear arsenal.

 

[Slavister]

Putin violated the 1994 Budapest Memorandum.

Ukraine willingly de-nuclearized in 1994-1996 in exchange for security assurances from Russia/US/Britain and this allowed Russia to invade in 2014.

At the time, Ukrine had the 3rd largest nuclear arsenal.

Yes, Russia has certainly violated it. I am sure it also violated various other agreements with former republics of USSR (I am guessing there was some peace agreement with Georgia too).

My point was only about whether Russia is / should be considered the one standing in for former USSR when it comes to various agreements between former USSR and rest of the world.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

I have repeatedly addressed your question. You not liking my answer doesn’t change that facts.

I had greater respect for you once. Really thought you could give an honest answer to a simple question.

 

[Tigerace117]

I had greater respect for you once. Really thought you could give an honest answer to a simple question.

I have answered repeatedly. You not liking that answer doesn’t change it.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Yes, Russia has certainly violated it. I am sure it also violated various other agreements with former republics of USSR (I am guessing there was some peace agreement with Georgia too).

My point was only about whether Russia is / should be considered the one standing in for former USSR when it comes to various agreements between former USSR and rest of the world.

When the USSR dissolved, the new Russian Federation agreed with the United Nations that it would assume Russia's SC position and also all of Russia's diplomatic/foreign responsibilities.

This would indicate [to me] an uninterrupted continuum.