URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Global Collapse
  HTML https://globalcollapse.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: General Discussion
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 3105--------------------------------------------------
       Knarf's Knewz ( Who is the eviler empire? )
       By: Blade of Grass Date: March 17, 2022, 8:22 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Ignored Warnings: How NATO Expansion Led to the Current Ukraine
       Tragedy
       History will show that Washington’s treatment of Russia in the
       decades following the demise of the Soviet Union was a policy
       blunder of epic proportions.
       NATO Expansion — The Trigger for Russia’s Attack on Ukraine? –
       Russia’s military offensive against Ukraine is an act of
       aggression that will make already worrisome tensions between
       NATO and Moscow even more dangerous. The West’s new cold war
       with Russia has turned hot. Vladimir Putin bears primary
       responsibility for this latest development, but NATO’s arrogant,
       tone‐​deaf policy toward Russia over the past
       quarter‐​century deserves a large share as well.
       Analysts committed to a U.S. foreign policy of realism and
       restraint have warned for more than a
       quarter‐​century that continuing to expand the most
       powerful military alliance in history toward another major power
       would not end well. The war in Ukraine provides definitive
       confirmation that it did not.
       Thinking Through the Ukraine Crisis — the Causes
       “It would be extraordinarily difficult to expand NATO eastward
       without that action’s being viewed by Russia as unfriendly. Even
       the most modest schemes would bring the alliance to the borders
       of the old Soviet Union. Some of the more ambitious versions
       would have the alliance virtually surround the Russian
       Federation itself.” Beyond NATO: Staying Out of Europe’s Wars
       (p. 45). I wrote those words in 1994, at a time when expansion
       proposals merely constituted occasional speculation in foreign
       policy seminars in New York City and Washington, D.C. I added
       that expansion “would constitute a needless provocation of
       Russia.”
       What was not publicly known at the time was that Bill Clinton’s
       administration had already made the fateful decision the
       previous year to push for including some former Warsaw Pact
       countries in NATO. The administration would soon propose
       inviting Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary to become
       members, and the U.S. Senate approved adding those countries to
       the North Atlantic Treaty in 1998. It would be the first of
       several waves of membership expansion.
       Even that first stage provoked Russian opposition and anger. In
       her memoir, Clinton’s secretary of state, Madeleine Albright,
       concedes that “[Russian President Boris] Yeltsin and his
       countrymen were strongly opposed to enlargement, seeing it as a
       strategy for exploiting their vulnerability and moving Europe’s
       dividing line to the east, leaving them isolated.” Deputy
       Secretary of State Strobe Talbott similarly described the
       Russian attitude. “Many Russians see NATO as a vestige of the
       cold war, inherently directed against their country. They point
       out that they have disbanded the Warsaw Pact, their military
       alliance, and ask why the West should not do the same.” It was
       an excellent question, and neither the Clinton administration
       nor its successors provided even a remotely convincing answer.
       George Kennan, the intellectual father of America’s containment
       policy during the Cold War, perceptively warned in a May 2, 1998
       New York Times interview about what the Senate’s ratification of
       NATO’s first round of expansion would set in motion. ”I think it
       is the beginning of a new cold war,” Kennan stated. ”I think the
       Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect
       their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no
       reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody
       else.”
       He was right, but U.S. and NATO leaders proceeded with new
       rounds of expansion, including the provocative step of adding
       the three Baltic republics. Those countries not only had been
       part of the Soviet Union, but they had also been part of
       Russia’s empire during the Czarist era. That wave of expansion
       now had NATO perched on the border of the Russian Federation.
       Moscow’s patience with NATO’s ever more intrusive behavior was
       wearing thin. The last reasonably friendly warning from Russia
       that the alliance needed to back off came in March 2007, when
       Putin addressed the annual Munich Security Conference. “NATO has
       put its frontline forces on our borders,” Putin complained. NATO
       expansion “represents a serious provocation that reduces the
       level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: against
       whom is this expansion intended? And what happened to the
       assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of
       the Warsaw Pact?”
       In his memoir, Duty, Robert M. Gates, who served as secretary of
       defense in the administrations of both George W. Bush and Barack
       Obama, stated his belief that “the relationship with Russia had
       been badly mismanaged after [George H.W.] Bush left office in
       1993.”Among other missteps, “U.S. agreements with the Romanian
       and Bulgarian governments to rotate troops through bases in
       those countries was a needless provocation.” In an implicit
       rebuke to the younger Bush, Gates asserted that “trying to bring
       Georgia and Ukraine into NATO was truly overreaching.” That
       move, he contended, was a case of “recklessly ignoring what the
       Russians considered their own vital national interests.”
       The following year, the Kremlin demonstrated that its discontent
       with NATO’s continuing incursions into Russia’s security zone
       had moved beyond verbal objections. Moscow exploited a foolish
       provocation by Georgia’s pro‐​Western government to
       launch a military offensive that brought Russian troops to the
       outskirts of the capital. Thereafter, Russia permanently
       detached two secessionist‐​minded Georgian regions
       and put them under effective Russian control.
       Western (especially U.S.) leaders continued to blow through red
       warning light after a red warning light, however. The Obama
       administration’s shockingly arrogant meddling in Ukraine’s
       internal political affairs in 2013 and 2014 to help
       demonstrators overthrow Ukraine’s elected,
       pro‐​Russia president was the single most brazen
       provocation, and it caused tensions to spike. Moscow immediately
       responded by seizing and annexing Crimea, and a new cold war was
       underway with a vengeance.
       Could the Ukraine Crisis Have Been Avoided?
       Events during the past few months constituted the last chance to
       avoid a hot war in Eastern Europe. Putin demanded that NATO
       provide guarantees on several security issues. Specifically, the
       Kremlin wanted binding assurances that the alliance would reduce
       the scope of its growing military presence in Eastern Europe and
       would never offer membership to Ukraine. He backed up those
       demands with a massive military buildup on Ukraine’s borders.
       The Biden administration’s response to Russia’s quest for
       meaningful Western concessions and security guarantees was tepid
       and evasive. Putin then clearly decided to escalate matters.
       Washington’s attempt to make Ukraine a NATO political and
       military pawn (even absent the country’s formal membership in
       the alliance) may end up costing the Ukrainian people dearly.
       The Ukraine Tragedy
       History will show that Washington’s treatment of Russia in the
       decades following the demise of the Soviet Union was a policy
       blunder of epic proportions. It was entirely predictable that
       NATO expansion would ultimately lead to a tragic, perhaps
       violent, breach of relations with Moscow. Perceptive analysts
       warned of the likely consequences, but those warnings went
       unheeded. We are now paying the price for the U.S. foreign
       policy establishment’s myopia and arrogance.
  HTML https://www.cato.org/commentary/ignored-warnings-how-nato-expansion-led-current-ukraine-tragedy#
       #Post#: 3106--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Knarf's Knewz ( Who is the eviler empire? )
       By: RE Date: March 17, 2022, 11:53 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=Blade of Grass link=topic=108.msg3105#msg3105
       date=1647523350]
       Ignored Warnings: How NATO Expansion Led to the Current Ukraine
       Tragedy
       History will show that Washington’s treatment of Russia in the
       decades following the demise of the Soviet Union was a policy
       blunder of epic proportions.
       [/quote]
       Thank Kissinger & Bryzynski for that.
       RE
       *****************************************************