NATO

[Big Abraham]

That American foreign policymakers don't ignore strategic considerations doesn't mean they don't care about moralistic ones. This is the very next paragraph in the cable you quote:

It seems to us to be important that this area, because of its resources and geographical position athwart the sea and air routes between East and West, should be in the hands of a people following the paths of democratic civilization rather than those of Eastern dictatorships. The British publicly and officially admit that they are no longer able to keep the Middle East in order without our help. We are inclined to believe that a policy of inactivity or “drift” on our part will result in a progressive deterioration of the influence of democratic civilization in the Near East.

Even in the previous post I had said that U.S. strategic concerns are often clothed in phrases like "spreading democracy", "national defense", etc. So of course they employ moralistic arguments. It does the United States quite a bit of good to frame the conflict as an "us versus them", "freedom versus tyranny" to rally the public behind their support; and no doubt the Russians do the same within their own territory. I mean, after all, who'd wanna side with tyranny over democracy?

But let's not try and pretend like there weren't greater interests the architects of these wars were preoccupied with. It doesn't take a mind reader to know that the Bush administration's personal opinion of Saddam Hussein really didn't play much of a role in the decision to invade Iraq; all the evidence points in the direction of economic and strategic interests being the outsized factor. It's no different than their dealings with Eastern Europe and Russia.

Well, to start off with, dictatorships by definition are not 'self-determining', but more importantly, yet again, why do you prioritize what you call 'non-provocation' of aggressive powers (when, yet again, there is no reason to believe their aggression is the result of Western 'provocation') over the self-determination of democratic states?

Because the non-proliferation of military hostilities is always going to be of more concern to me than subjecting foreign policy positions to a public vote. If a majority of Americans said they wanted to bomb the Middle East, I'd be against that too.

These states and their people evidently want to be part of NATO, and with good reason. Re: Donbass, this case exactly contradicts the rest of your position. NATO is exactly the reason there is no Donbass in Latvia. Had Ukraine been part of NATO, there would not be a war in Donbass.

That really is debatable. The Donbass is solidly pro-Russia and anti-NATO, both in terms of leadership there and in terms of sentiment among the general population. Had Ukraine become a member of the North Atlantic Alliance it would have been contrary to the wishes of eastern Ukraine and this could well have caused large-scale unrest in the region. That is mostly an incidental point, but still, an important one.

[Karpatsky]

Even in the previous post I had said that U.S. strategic concerns are often clothed in phrases like "spreading democracy", "national defense", etc. So of course they employ moralistic arguments. It does the United States quite a bit of good to frame the conflict as an "us versus them", "freedom versus tyranny" to rally the public behind their support; and no doubt the Russians do the same within their own territory. I mean, after all, who'd wanna side with tyranny over democracy?

But let's not try and pretend like there weren't greater interests the architects of these wars were preoccupied with. It doesn't take a mind reader to know that the Bush administration's personal opinion of Saddam Hussein really didn't play much of a role in the decision to invade Iraq; all the evidence points in the direction of economic and strategic interests being the outsized factor. It's no different than their dealings with Eastern Europe and Russia.

You suspect this, but have no way of knowing it. And regardless, as I said two posts ago, this is totally irrelevant to the empirical impact of American influence on positive outcomes. You are advocating for denying ordinary people the opportunity of a better life for the dubious benefit of spiting the US foreign policy establishment.

Because the non-proliferation of military hostilities is always going to be of more concern to me than subjecting foreign policy positions to a public vote. If a majority of Americans said they wanted to bomb the Middle East, I'd be against that too.

You misunderstood me - why should we prioritize not 'provoking' Russia (when, again, collective security decreases, not increases, the chance of conflict) over the self-determined desire of democratic nations to engage in collective security?

That really is debatable. The Donbass is solidly pro-Russia and anti-NATO, both in terms of leadership there and in terms of sentiment among the general population. Had Ukraine become a member of the North Atlantic Alliance it would have been contrary to the wishes of eastern Ukraine and this could well have caused large-scale unrest in the region. That is mostly an incidental point, but still, an important one.

It really isn't. The Russian minority in Estonia and Latvia, just for example, is not significantly less hostile to NATO or friendly to the Russian government than that in Ukraine, and in all cases in all cases this hostility and friendship is heavily overstated by Russophiles. The war in Donbass is a Russian invasion, not a homegrown revolt.

[Big Abraham]

You suspect this, but have no way of knowing it. And regardless, as I said two posts ago, this is totally irrelevant to the empirical impact of American influence on positive outcomes. You are advocating for denying ordinary people the opportunity of a better life for the dubious benefit of spiting the US foreign policy establishment.

No. American foreign policy initiatives do not, on average, lead to positive outcomes or opportunities for a better life for the vast majority of people. What I had said was that a liberal democratic form of government was probably better for the average Lithuanian or Estonian than becoming subjects of a Russian occupation, which is quite a different claim.

You misunderstood me - why should we prioritize not 'provoking' Russia (when, again, collective security decreases, not increases, the chance of conflict) over the self-determined desire of democratic nations to engage in collective security?

For one, NATO is much more than a collective defense mechanism. It's a global operations programme that has violated the sovereignty of nations, toppled legitimate governments, and completely fails to abide by the principle of "the self-determined desire of democratic nations" in the first place. For second, like I've said, the enlargement of NATO violates an American agreement and continues to grow American dominion over Eastern Europe. After all, NATO was never designed to protect the Ukraine or other Soviet republics; it was meant to protect the Western powers, which are not under threat. If you want to talk about "collective balancing", it won't be found in the form of Russia being expected to capitulate to whatever the United States wants, which will probably embitter them further.

Before the question of NATO membership of the Ukraine was raised, there was relative peace in the region, and good relations with both Russia and the West maintain. It has only been since there was a political campaign to speed up NATO or European Community membership that there has been widespread violence in the area. It seems pretty plain that, had the question of NATO membership not been raised, the violence which has proceeded as a result would have been avoided.

It really isn't. The Russian minority in Estonia and Latvia, just for example, is not significantly less hostile to NATO or friendly to the Russian government than that in Ukraine, and in all cases in all cases this hostility and friendship is heavily overstated by Russophiles. The war in Donbass is a Russian invasion, not a homegrown revolt.

I wasn't talking about Estonia. I was speaking of Ukraine, which does have solid pro-Russian majorities in the east. And the instability in the Donbass began before the Russian invasion. From the beginning of 2014, pro-Russian protests took place in Donetsk and Luhansk which eventually escalated into an armed conflict between the separatist forces of these provinces and the Ukrainian government.

[Karpatsky]

No. American foreign policy initiatives do not, on average, lead to positive outcomes or opportunities for a better life for the vast majority of people. What I had said was that a liberal democratic form of government was probably better for the average Lithuanian or Estonian than becoming subjects of a Russian occupation, which is quite a different claim.

The fact that the Lithuania and Estonia remain liberal democracies is the direct result of their membership in NATO.

For one, NATO is much more than a collective defense mechanism. It's a global operations programme that has violated the sovereignty of nations, toppled legitimate governments, and completely fails to abide by the principle of "the self-determined desire of democratic nations" in the first place. For second, like I've said, the enlargement of NATO violates an American agreement and continues to grow American dominion over Eastern Europe. After all, NATO was never designed to protect the Ukraine or other Soviet republics; it was meant to protect the Western powers, which are not under threat. If you want to talk about "collective balancing", it won't be found in the form of Russia being expected to capitulate to whatever the United States wants, which will probably embitter them further.

Before the question of NATO membership of the Ukraine was raised, there was relative peace in the region, and good relations with both Russia and the West maintain. It has only been since there was a political campaign to speed up NATO or European Community membership that there has been widespread violence in the area. It seems pretty plain that, had the question of NATO membership not been raised, the violence which has proceeded as a result would have been avoided.

You can ask the Georgians and Moldovans what they think of your 'relative peace'. Not to mention, again and again and again, you are acting as if America went and brainwashed all the Estonians and Ukrainians to want anticorruption and rule of law. Why is it so hard to believe, given you have admitted that life is better in Western than Eastern Europe, that Ukrainians genuinely do not want to live under Russian domination?

I wasn't talking about Estonia. I was speaking of Ukraine, which does have solid pro-Russian majorities in the east. And the instability in the Donbass began before the Russian invasion. From the beginning of 2014, pro-Russian protests took place in Donetsk and Luhansk which eventually escalated into an armed conflict between the separatist forces of these provinces and the Ukrainian government.

Estonia and Latvia also have Russian-majority regions.

'Eventually escalated' is quite a pretty phrase. Reread the history of the conflict - I'm not going to do your homework for you anymore on this, but ironically the word 'coup' is much more appropriate here.

Let me ask you this: you seem to give the Russian government an immense benefit of the doubt on these issues, especially compared to the bitter cynicism . What is it that you actually want to happen in Eastern Europe? Do you want NATO to completely cease to exist, without a replacement? What do you imagine would be the result of that?

And for the love of god, stop writing 'the Ukraine'. You have no excuse for this anymore, given I and others have explained it to you at length.

[Karpatsky]

Disband it and create a new alliance with Russia against China.

I actually agree completely, though obviously only when Russia becomes a reliable partner.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Disband it and create a new alliance with Russia against China.

I actually agree completely, though obviously only when Russia becomes a reliable partner.

Before 2010s Russia had enjoyed productive relations with NATO, so it's not impossible.

[Karpatsky]

Disband it and create a new alliance with Russia against China.

I actually agree completely, though obviously only when Russia becomes a reliable partner.

Before 2010s Russia had enjoyed productive relations with NATO, so it's not impossible.

I consider not invading your neighbors and being a somewhat free state prerequisites to becoming a reliable partner, so at minimum after 2008 it was not possible, but I agree that it is not impossible to achieve at some point in the future. Crimea will be the real area of difficulty in that case.

[Big Abraham]

The fact that the Lithuania and Estonia remain liberal democracies is the direct result of their membership in NATO.

The fact that Lithuania and Estonia are liberal democracies is the direct result of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Even absent NATO, there would have no incentive for Russia to annex these territories. Conquering the Baltic states is a losing proposition for the Russians no matter how one looks at it.

You can ask the Georgians and Moldovans what they think of your 'relative peace'. Not to mention, again and again and again, you are acting as if America went and brainwashed all the Estonians and Ukrainians to want anticorruption and rule of law. Why is it so hard to believe, given you have admitted that life is better in Western than Eastern Europe, that Ukrainians genuinely do not want to live under Russian domination?

You really seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding my point. I am not, nor have I ever been, of the belief that the Ukrainians would prefer to live under "Russian domination", nor am I looking for Russian domination in the region. The rule of law, and relative democracy, can and will remain in place without Washington's anti-Russian rhetoric and NATO operations in the East. Russia has no genuine interest in trying to recapture her "lost territories", much like how Britain isn't out there trying to reclaim India or the vast swaths of colonial land in Africa. This is even more true when you consider the amount of money they would have to invest into rebuilding after a war.

Estonia and Latvia also have Russian-majority regions.

True, but the ethnic divisions in those countries aren't nearly as noticeable as they are in the Donbass.

Let me ask you this: you seem to give the Russian government an immense benefit of the doubt on these issues, especially compared to the bitter cynicism . What is it that you actually want to happen in Eastern Europe? Do you want NATO to completely cease to exist, without a replacement? What do you imagine would be the result of that?

Yes, I would like NATO to completely cease to exist without a replacement, and if certain states in Central or Eastern Europe do have the desire to form a military alliance, they should do so without relying on American support. The result would be warmer relations with Russia; the North Atlantic military alliance has hitherto only been interested in deepening the crisis in the relations with Russia, and now it is the only argument that underlines the so-called importance and usefulness of NATO for the Western world.

And for the love of god, stop writing 'the Ukraine'. You have no excuse for this anymore, given I and others have explained it to you at length.

It's really just a force of habit at this point. I do not intend for any offense.

[Karpatsky]

The fact that Lithuania and Estonia are liberal democracies is the direct result of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Even absent NATO, there would have no incentive for Russia to annex these territories. Conquering the Baltic states is a losing proposition for the Russians no matter how one looks at it.

You really seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding my point. I am not, nor have I ever been, of the belief that the Ukrainians would prefer to live under "Russian domination", nor am I looking for Russian domination in the region. The rule of law, and relative democracy, can and will remain in place without Washington's anti-Russian rhetoric and NATO operations in the East. Russia has no genuine interest in trying to recapture her "lost territories", much like how Britain isn't out there trying to reclaim India or the vast swaths of colonial land in Africa. This is even more true when you consider the amount of money they would have to invest into rebuilding after a war.

You really seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding Russian foreign policy ambitions. Russian decision makers, whether they be nationalists or Eurasianists, near-universally consider the fall of the Soviet Union to be a geopolitical tragedy (in Putin's words), and advocate for a reassertion of Russian domination over these territories. Russian continental imperialism is simply not comparable to the maritime imperialism of Western European powers, both in terms of the historical and cultural relationship of these territories and the nature of the current government. Yet again, you are claiming to know the 'true intent' of people on both sides better than they do themselves, placing the Americans in an artificially negative and the Russians in an artificially positive light.

True, but the ethnic divisions in those countries aren't nearly as noticeable as they are in the Donbass.

Perhaps because the political facet of those ethnic divisions are hugely exacerbated by the near-monopoly of Russian state media on Russian-language broadcasts, which is strategically used to open opportunities for aggression - that do not exist in the Baltic States due to their membership in a certain collective defense organization.

Yes, I would like NATO to completely cease to exist without a replacement, and if certain states in Central or Eastern Europe do have the desire to form a military alliance, they should do so without relying on American support. The result would be warmer relations with Russia; the North Atlantic military alliance has hitherto only been interested in deepening the crisis in the relations with Russia, and now it is the only argument that underlines the so-called importance and usefulness of NATO for the Western world.

1. Why should Central or Eastern European states not be allowed to associate with the United States?

2. You are technically correct that ignoring and enabling Russian imperialism would result in warmer relations with Russia, at least in the short run. This, however, is not a desirable situation for anyone involved except for Russian autocrats and pro-Russian oligarchs in other countries.

It's really just a force of habit at this point. I do not intend for any offense.

Continued indifference on such an issue is indistinguishable from intent.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

You suspect this, but have no way of knowing it. And regardless, as I said two posts ago, this is totally irrelevant to the empirical impact of American influence on positive outcomes. You are advocating for denying ordinary people the opportunity of a better life for the dubious benefit of spiting the US foreign policy establishment.

No. American foreign policy initiatives do not, on average, lead to positive outcomes or opportunities for a better life for the vast majority of people. What I had said was that a liberal democratic form of government was probably better for the average Lithuanian or Estonian than becoming subjects of a Russian occupation, which is quite a different claim.

You misunderstood me - why should we prioritize not 'provoking' Russia (when, again, collective security decreases, not increases, the chance of conflict) over the self-determined desire of democratic nations to engage in collective security?

For one, NATO is much more than a collective defense mechanism. It's a global operations programme that has violated the sovereignty of nations, toppled legitimate governments, and completely fails to abide by the principle of "the self-determined desire of democratic nations" in the first place. For second, like I've said, the enlargement of NATO violates an American agreement and continues to grow American dominion over Eastern Europe. After all, NATO was never designed to protect the Ukraine or other Soviet republics; it was meant to protect the Western powers, which are not under threat. If you want to talk about "collective balancing", it won't be found in the form of Russia being expected to capitulate to whatever the United States wants, which will probably embitter them further.

Can you please provide a link to the actual agreement in question?

I've seen this same claim about an agreement mentioned a lot over the years, but I can never seem to find which agreement it is, much less a copy of it.

Before the question of NATO membership of the Ukraine was raised, there was relative peace in the region, and good relations with both Russia and the West maintain. It has only been since there was a political campaign to speed up NATO or European Community membership that there has been widespread violence in the area. It seems pretty plain that, had the question of NATO membership not been raised, the violence which has proceeded as a result would have been avoided.

"Post hoc ergo propter hoc is an informal fallacy that states "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X.  Post hoc is a particularly tempting error because correlation appears to suggest causality. The fallacy lies in a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors potentially responsible for the result that might rule out the connection."

[Big Abraham]

You suspect this, but have no way of knowing it. And regardless, as I said two posts ago, this is totally irrelevant to the empirical impact of American influence on positive outcomes. You are advocating for denying ordinary people the opportunity of a better life for the dubious benefit of spiting the US foreign policy establishment.

No. American foreign policy initiatives do not, on average, lead to positive outcomes or opportunities for a better life for the vast majority of people. What I had said was that a liberal democratic form of government was probably better for the average Lithuanian or Estonian than becoming subjects of a Russian occupation, which is quite a different claim.

You misunderstood me - why should we prioritize not 'provoking' Russia (when, again, collective security decreases, not increases, the chance of conflict) over the self-determined desire of democratic nations to engage in collective security?

For one, NATO is much more than a collective defense mechanism. It's a global operations programme that has violated the sovereignty of nations, toppled legitimate governments, and completely fails to abide by the principle of "the self-determined desire of democratic nations" in the first place. For second, like I've said, the enlargement of NATO violates an American agreement and continues to grow American dominion over Eastern Europe. After all, NATO was never designed to protect the Ukraine or other Soviet republics; it was meant to protect the Western powers, which are not under threat. If you want to talk about "collective balancing", it won't be found in the form of Russia being expected to capitulate to whatever the United States wants, which will probably embitter them further.

Can you please provide a link to the actual agreement in question?

I've seen this same claim about an agreement mentioned a lot over the years, but I can never seem to find which agreement it is, much less a copy of it.

This entire article has a lot of interesting links and citations regarding the negotiations conducted between the United States and the Soviet Union about NATO expansion during the end of the Cold War. A transcript of the verbal agreement reached by Secretary of State James Baker and Gorbachev in 1990, which guarantees that "not an inch of NATO's present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction", can be found here.

"Post hoc ergo propter hoc is an informal fallacy that states "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X.  Post hoc is a particularly tempting error because correlation appears to suggest causality. The fallacy lies in a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors potentially responsible for the result that might rule out the connection."

This is only an informal fallacy when the two things in question are correlated but there is otherwise no evidence for causation. This isn't true of the situation in Russia, since we know that NATO expansion has proved to be a major thorn in the side of Putin. This is not to say it is the only factor, but to deny that it is a factor at all is significantly more foolish.

[Big Abraham]

Russian decision makers, whether they be nationalists or Eurasianists, near-universally consider the fall of the Soviet Union to be a geopolitical tragedy (in Putin's words), and advocate for a reassertion of Russian domination over these territories.

There is some degree of Soviet nostalgia among both the Russian population and her statesmen. But your second assertion is non sequitur; there is no evidence that, absent NATO, Russia would have had rounded up the tanks and marched into Reval. Even had the Baltic republics never been members of the North Atlantic Alliance, the United States and most of the Western world would not have accepted an invasion of Estonia, nor does it make much tactical or strategic sense from a Russian viewpoint. Also, unlike in the Crimea, there is widespread anti-Russian sentiment among the Baltic population, which would make an annexation even more difficult to pull off.

There are dozens of reasons why it would simply not have made any sense for Russia to carry out an invasion of her neighbouring states, and you haven't provided any evidence other than pointing to the 2014 annexation of Crimea, which (1) did not occur in the Baltics, and (2) was after NATO had already expanded to Russian borders. Do you have any documentation or anything that Putin or Medvedev were planning on carrying out an invasion of Estonia prior to NATO membership?

Perhaps because the political facet of those ethnic divisions are hugely exacerbated by the near-monopoly of Russian state media on Russian-language broadcasts, which is strategically used to open opportunities for aggression - that do not exist in the Baltic States due to their membership in a certain collective defense organization.

There is little doubt that Putin sees a greater significance in Ukraine than in the Baltics, and for good reason. It's a huge expanse of flat land that France and Germany all crossed to strike at Russia herself. No Russian leader would tolerate a military alliance the sworn enemy of Moscow moving into that region, nor would any Russian leader stand idly by while the West helped install a government there that was determined to integrate Ukraine into the West.

1. Why should Central or Eastern European states not be allowed to associate with the United States?

2. You are technically correct that ignoring and enabling Russian imperialism would result in warmer relations with Russia, at least in the short run. This, however, is not a desirable situation for anyone involved except for Russian autocrats and pro-Russian oligarchs in other countries.

1. I did not say that Central or Eastern European states, or indeed any state, should not be allowed to associate with America. I'm fine with the United States and any other country maintaining diplomatic relations and being on friendly terms with another sovereign state. I am, however, opposed to any kind of military alliance as a matter of principle.

2. Demonstrably false. Warmer relations with Russia would likely bring about an end to the sanctions which have had a negative impact on Russian trade, a corollary of which includes the well-being of ordinary citizens, as well as serving to make Eastern Europe less of a powder-keg which also improves the well-being of ordinary citizens.

[dead0man]

yeah guys, it's just a coincidence that Putin invaded countries that didn't get NATO membership.

[Karpatsky]

There is some degree of Soviet nostalgia among both the Russian population and her statesmen. But your second assertion is non sequitur; there is no evidence that, absent NATO, Russia would have had rounded up the tanks and marched into Reval. Even had the Baltic republics never been members of the North Atlantic Alliance, the United States and most of the Western world would not have accepted an invasion of Estonia, nor does it make much tactical or strategic sense from a Russian viewpoint. Also, unlike in the Crimea, there is widespread anti-Russian sentiment among the Baltic population, which would make an annexation even more difficult to pull off.

What does 'not accepting an invasion of Estonia' even mean if not defending them against that invasion, especially given you argue against sanctions below? In your view, is sternly-written words the only acceptable way for democratic nations to protect each other against aggression?

There are dozens of reasons why it would simply not have made any sense for Russia to carry out an invasion of her neighbouring states, and you haven't provided any evidence other than pointing to the 2014 annexation of Crimea, which (1) did not occur in the Baltics, and (2) was after NATO had already expanded to Russian borders. Do you have any documentation or anything that Putin or Medvedev were planning on carrying out an invasion of Estonia prior to NATO membership?

Sure, except for the part where they have repeatedly, so maybe you don't know the inner workings of the minds of Russian decision makers as well as you think you do. I have mentioned at length examples of Russian aggression in the post-Soviet sphere starting in 1992, so if you want you can go back and read those again. Besides this, it is ridiculous to demand that states have documented evidence of impending invasion of them themselves before making an attempt to secure themselves.

There is little doubt that Putin sees a greater significance in Ukraine than in the Baltics, and for good reason. It's a huge expanse of flat land that France and Germany all crossed to strike at Russia herself. No Russian leader would tolerate a military alliance the sworn enemy of Moscow moving into that region, nor would any Russian leader stand idly by while the West helped install a government there that was determined to integrate Ukraine into the West.

Wow, now who's playing 'good guys-bad guys'? So now the Russian government has the right to dominate its neighbors because it feared actual, unironic invasion by the Western democracies? Are you listening to yourself? Let me just quote you here, because it is hugely more appropriate in this case: Do you have any documentation or anything that France or Germany were planning a land invasion of a nuclear power at any point?

1. I did not say that Central or Eastern European states, or indeed any state, should not be allowed to associate with America. I'm fine with the United States and any other country maintaining diplomatic relations and being on friendly terms with another sovereign state. I am, however, opposed to any kind of military alliance as a matter of principle.

So hold on for a second, earlier you dodged the peacekeeping results of collective defense by saying "NATO is much more than a collective defense mechanism". Are you now arguing against the concept of collective defense as a whole as morally unacceptable?

2. Demonstrably false. Warmer relations with Russia would likely bring about an end to the sanctions which have had a negative impact on Russian trade, a corollary of which includes the well-being of ordinary citizens, as well as serving to make Eastern Europe less of a powder-keg which also improves the well-being of ordinary citizens.

Well, to start off with, empirically the Russian population is much worse affected by Russian sanctions on the EU and the internal corruption and repression inherent to their oligarchic system of government than the mostly targeted sanctions imposed by the West, but besides this, I'm really interested in your theory that creating zero consequences for international aggression will somehow decrease the chance of bad outcomes in the future. Again, are you listening to yourself?

[Orser67]

Can you please provide a link to the actual agreement in question?

I've seen this same claim about an agreement mentioned a lot over the years, but I can never seem to find which agreement it is, much less a copy of it.

It's an alleged informal agreement reached between Gorbachev and the Bush administration, and thus there is no actual agreement to link. The basic idea was that Gorbachev acquiesced to the reunification of Germany (with Germany remaining part of NATO) in return for promises that NATO would not expand east. Whether or not the informal agreement was actually reached, and whether such an informal agreement should have been binding on future presidents, remains a matter of debate.

[Karpatsky]

Can you please provide a link to the actual agreement in question?

I've seen this same claim about an agreement mentioned a lot over the years, but I can never seem to find which agreement it is, much less a copy of it.

It's an alleged informal agreement reached between Gorbachev and the Bush administration, and thus there is no actual agreement to link. The basic idea was that Gorbachev acquiesced to the reunification of Germany (with Germany remaining part of NATO) in return for promises that NATO would not expand east. Whether or not the informal agreement was actually reached, and whether such an informal agreement should have been binding on future presidents, remains a matter of debate.

It isn't really 'alleged', there are documents - it's just that to call it an 'agreement' at all is highly misleading. These are the conversations in question:

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//dc.html?doc=4325678-Document-04-Memorandum-of-conversation-between

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//dc.html?doc=4325679-Document-05-Memorandum-of-conversation-between

They are part of hypothetical discussion of terms as proposed by then SoS Baker, which did not make it into the final agreements on German unification and in any case became irrelevant with the end of Baker's term and the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, like many Russian propaganda lines, there is enough relation to the truth in it to fool the disinterested.

[Big Abraham]

What does 'not accepting an invasion of Estonia' even mean if not defending them against that invasion, especially given you argue against sanctions below? In your view, is sternly-written words the only acceptable way for democratic nations to protect each other against aggression?

It means precisely that. To be clear, I'm not saying what America or Russia should or should not do in this particular instance; I'm merely describing how such an invasion would be received by the leaders of American foreign policy.

Sure, except for the part where they have repeatedly, so maybe you don't know the inner workings of the minds of Russian decision makers as well as you think you do. I have mentioned at length examples of Russian aggression in the post-Soviet sphere starting in 1992, so if you want you can go back and read those again. Besides this, it is ridiculous to demand that states have documented evidence of impending invasion of them themselves before making an attempt to secure themselves.

Pointing to invasions that took place during the imperial or Soviet era is not a good tactic, given that the economic, and political, conditions have changed considerably since then. Regarding your last point, I really don't know how you could be so obstinate: why should proper evidence and documentation not be considered the reasonable standard for a nation to launch a first-strike war? Otherwise such war would be seen as a preventative war which has been barred by the United Nations and is contrary to the principles of international law.

Wow, now who's playing 'good guys-bad guys'? So now the Russian government has the right to dominate its neighbors because it feared actual, unironic invasion by the Western democracies? Are you listening to yourself?

I'm not telling you who the bad guys or the good guys are. I'm just telling you what the Russian leaders would and would not accept.

Let me just quote you here, because it is hugely more appropriate in this case: Do you have any documentation or anything that France or Germany were planning a land invasion of a nuclear power at any point?

I was referring to the French invasion during the Napoleonic wars and the German invasion during the Second World War. Both of those were prior to the development of nuclear weapons.

So hold on for a second, earlier you dodged the peacekeeping results of collective defense by saying "NATO is much more than a collective defense mechanism". Are you now arguing against the concept of collective defense as a whole as morally unacceptable?

It's not a question of morality, but I am personally opposed to the existence of standing armies so naturally I am against military alliances as a matter of principle. At any rate, military alliances tend to lead to rather poor outcomes, including two world wars and the long-term threat of global nuclear warfare, so pardon me if I'm not too keen on the concept.

Well, to start off with, empirically the Russian population is much worse affected by Russian sanctions on the EU and the internal corruption and repression inherent to their oligarchic system of government than the mostly targeted sanctions imposed by the West, but besides this, I'm really interested in your theory that creating zero consequences for international aggression will somehow decrease the chance of bad outcomes in the future. Again, are you listening to yourself?

I cannot agree to the terms of the second part of this paragraph, insofar that the question, without the variable of NATO military presence in Eastern Europe, is meaningless. If you adhere to the principle of enacting consequences for international aggression, why do you oppose Russian sanctions on America or the European Union?

[Karpatsky]

It means precisely that. To be clear, I'm not saying what America or Russia should or should not do in this particular instance; I'm merely describing how such an invasion would be received by the leaders of American foreign policy.

You assume this is what they would do; a military alliance is at its core, a formalization of that. As I've mentioned above, the vaguer this is, the more likely war will start as the result of misunderstood priorities.

Pointing to invasions that took place during the imperial or Soviet era is not a good tactic, given that the economic, and political, conditions have changed considerably since then. Regarding your last point, I really don't know how you could be so obstinate: why should proper evidence and documentation not be considered the reasonable standard for a nation to launch a first-strike war? Otherwise such war would be seen as a preventative war which has been barred by the United Nations and is contrary to the principles of international law.

Who was ever talking about a first-strike war? I don't see what the connection is to what I said.

As far as your first sentence, you are the only person in this thread to bring up anything which occurred before 1991, including in your very next paragraph, so again, I'm not sure what you're going for here.

It's not a question of morality, but I am personally opposed to the existence of standing armies so naturally I am against military alliances as a matter of principle. At any rate, military alliances tend to lead to rather poor outcomes, including two world wars and the long-term threat of global nuclear warfare, so pardon me if I'm not too keen on the concept.

Here, finally, we have an actual matter of value. I agree that ideally, we would not have standing armies. Unfortunately, as long as revisionist powers do have them, status quo powers are forced to also retain them to prevent conflict rising from easy opportunities for aggression. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of the start of the world wars (and the origins of nuclear weapons, but we'll leave that aside); this may be the first time I have every heard anyone argue WWII was the result of insufficiently weak military alliances, so kudos for originality at least. World War I fundamentally began because the Central Powers did not see as credible the Russian guarantee of Serbia, and World War II (in Europe) fundamentally began because the Western powers were unwilling to provide credible defense to Central European states in the face of aggression. As I have explained at length repeatedly, if your first interest truly is preventing conflict, you should be keen on the concept.

I cannot agree to the terms of the second part of this paragraph, insofar that the question, without the variable of NATO military presence in Eastern Europe, is meaningless. If you adhere to the principle of enacting consequences for international aggression, why do you oppose Russian sanctions on America or the European Union?

I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at here, unless you're again implying that Russian aggression is the result rather than the cause of NATO military presence in Eastern Europe, which I have repeatedly shown to be implausible. As far as your second sentence, it's not really my role to support or oppose Russian sanctions on the West, but I guess I can answer anyways: on an analytical level, imposing consequences for aggression is not itself aggression, and on a moral level, the Russian government is again screwing over its own citizens for the sake of a geopolitical prestige project which it cannot possibly come out ahead in.

[Sirius_]

These Americans now recklessly saying that NATO should be disbanded, easy for you to. I don't think eastern Europe would appreciate that.