With
all of the anti-Russia sentiment swirling about in Washington since Hillary
Clinton lost the 2016 run for president, a look back in time is in order.
As mentioned very briefly in the recent Oliver Stone interviews of
Vladimir Putin, at one point during the Clinton Administration, Russia had
considered joining NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization that was
created in the post-Second World War period to protect Europe from the
Communist hordes that were surely going to attempt to take over Europe and
convert its citizenry from their capitalistic beliefs.
Looking
back to 1991 during the Bush I Administration and just after the collapse of
the Soviet Union, we find this in
the New York Times of December 21, 1991, one day after the December 20, 1991 NATO meeting where the Soviet Union announced its demise:
"In yet another sign that the disintegration
of the Soviet Union was turning global politics upside down, the Russian
President, Boris N. Yeltsin, wrote to NATO today saying Russia hoped to join
the alliance some time in the future.
Mr. Yeltsin's letter was sent in
conjunction with the first meeting ever held at the headquarters of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization between NATO foreign ministers and those of the
former Warsaw Pact -- the Soviet Union, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary,
Poland and Romania....Mr. Yeltsin's "long-term aim" to join NATO --
which follows earlier appeals by the other members of the former Warsaw Pact,
particularly Hungary and Czechoslovakia -- could eventually present a serious
challenge for NATO. Formed four decades ago precisely to deter a Soviet
invasion of Western Europe, it now finds itself having to deter a stampede from
the newly liberated nations of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, which want
to join the Western military alliance.
NATO officials, from Secretary
General Worner on down, seemed too taken aback by the Russian letter to give
any coherent response. Mr. Worner suggested at his news conference that Mr.
Yeltsin was not actually asking to join.
"I have seen the letter,"
Mr. Worner said. "He did not apply for membership, he just raises a
question, and then says he regards that as a long-term political aim. My
reaction is that nothing is excluded, and we will have time enough to develop
relations."
Mr. Worner's ambivalence about the
Yeltsin letter is not surprising. To admit Russia, which is expected to be the
main successor state of the Soviet Union, would require NATO to redefine itself
fundamentally.”
Here is
a quote from the December 20th, 1991 Yeltsin letter:
“…Today we are raising the question
of Russia’s membership in NATO…This will contribute to creating a climate of
mutual understanding and trust, strengthening stability and cooperation on the
European continent…We consider these relations (with NATO) to be very serious
and wish to develop this dialogue in each and every direction, both on the
political and military levels.”
Let’s
move forward nearly two decades. Here is
an article from the Los Angeles Times dated August 20, 2008 after Russia's
military entered Georgia:
“Anti-Russian
fervor threatens to hit fever pitch in Washington this week. In the wake of
Russia's military incursion into Georgia, Barack Obama is
suddenly doing his best to parrot John McCain's Russophobia. Indeed, the cries
to shove Moscow back into the cold are coming from both sides of the aisle:
Kick Russia out of the G-8,
lock it out of the European Union and the World Trade Organization and,
by all means, boycott Vladimir Putin's pet project, Sochi 2014 --
the Winter Olympics slated for a Black Sea venue a short drive from the
disputed territory of Abkhazia. On Tuesday, NATO said
that continuing normal relations with Russia was impossible and moved to all
but scrap the NATO-Russia Council.
Let no one be deceived: Putin has drawn a dangerous new
line. Russian troops have trespassed into a sovereign nation for the first time
since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. But all such retributive Western
campaigns are misguided and, like every attempt to twist Russian arms since the
end of the U.S.S.R., sure to backfire.
There's really only one lever left: Invite Russia to join
NATO.
This is not a new idea. Once upon a time, it was openly
entertained in diplomatic circles East and West. In late 1991, the final days
of the U.S.S.R,, Boris Yeltsin stunned a NATO meeting by sending a letter with
this unilateral declaration: "Today we are raising a question of Russia's
membership in NATO." "A long-term political aim," Yeltsin called
it then, as he threw down the gauntlet before the West. NATO ministers, as Tom
Friedman reported for the New York Times at the time, were "too taken
aback ... to give any coherent response." In the ensuing years, as Yeltsin
with characteristic bravura continued to raise the prospect, the West kept
fumbling for a reply.”
Here is a quote from
the transcript of Vladimir Putin’s March 5, 2000 interview with David Frost
that is referred to in the preceding L.A. Times article, Putin’s first
interview with a Western journalist since he entered the Kremlin:
"DAVID
FROST: Tell me about your views on NATO
if you would. Do you see NATO as a
potential partner, or a rival or an enemy?
PUTIN:
Russia
is part of the European culture. And I cannot imagine my own country in
isolation from Europe and what we often call the civilised world. So it is hard
for me to visualise NATO as an enemy. I think even posing the question this way will not do any good to
Russia or the world. The very question is capable of causing damage. Russia
strives for equitable and candid relations with its partners. The main problem
here lies in attempts to discard previously agreed common instruments - mainly
in resolving issues of international security.
We are open to equitable co-operation, to partnership. We believe we can
talk about more profound integration with NATO but only if Russia is regarded an equal partner. You are aware we
have been constantly voicing our opposition to NATO's eastward expansion.
DAVID
FROST: Is it possible Russia could join
NATO?
PUTIN:
I don't see why not. I would not rule
out such a possibility - but I repeat - if and
when Russia's views are taken into account as those of an equal partner.
I want to stress this again and again. The situation that was laid down in the
founding principles of the United Nations - that was the situation that
obtained in the world at the end of World War Two. All right, the situation may have changed.
Let's assume there is a desire on the part of those who perceive the change to install new mechanisms of ensuring
international security. But pretending - or proceeding from the assumption -
that Russia has nothing to do with it
and trying to exclude it from this process is hardly feasible. And when we talk
about our opposition to NATO's expansion - mind you, we have never ever declared any region of the world a
zone of our special interests, I prefer
to talk about strategic partnership. Its attempts to exclude us from the process
is what causes opposition and concern on our part. But that does not mean we
are going to shut ourselves off from the rest of the world. Isolationism is not an option." (my
bold)
Here is a map showing the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics, particularly the Eastern European bloc nations in 1989:
Here
is a map showing the western border of Russia in 1991:
Here is
a map showing how NATO's membership has expanded over the decades to
include former Soviet republics:
In
1949, there were 12 founding members
of NATO including Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy,
Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the United
States. Additional nations were added as follows: Greece and Turkey in
1952, Germany in 1955, Spain in 1982, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland in
1999, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia
in 2004, Albania and Croatia in 2009 and Montenegro in 2017.
Here is
a graphic showing NATO's current member and partner states:
Now,
let's look at a bit of history. According
to the National WW II Museum in New Orleans, during the Second World War,
the Soviet Union lost an estimated 8.8 to 10.7 million military personnel and a
total of 24 million military personnel and civilians. In contrast, the United States lost 416,800
military personnel and a total of 418,500 military personnel and civilians or
about one-sixtieth of the losses suffered by the Soviet Union. It's really no wonder that Russia has become
increasingly concerned about NATO expansionism into the Eastern European bloc
over the past decade and a half, after all, this bloc of nations formed a protective wall against incursion by NATO, a lesson that the Soviet Union learned the hard way at the beginning of World War II. It is
unfortunate that Russia's willingness to become a NATO partner wasn't accepted
25 years ago when the subject was first broached; perhaps we wouldn't be living through the genesis of the Cold War Part II.
So much for Boris Yeltsin's 1991 dream of "mutual understanding and trust".
"this bloc of nations formed a protective wall against incursion by NATO"
ReplyDeleteThat's what the Soviets used to say.
I have never seen, and have failed to imagine, any scenario whatsoever in which any NATO state, or the NATO states acting together in concert, would either (a) conclude that conventional military aggression against Russia would be in their net interest (regardless of military costs); or (b) conclude that such aggression would be militarily feasible.
It's a fantasy, a chimera. I rather doubt that any military analyst in the Russian Federation thinks it plausible that NATO would ever invade (except possibly in direct reaction to Russia itself committing aggression).
Putin doesn't hate NATO because it threatens Russia's legitimate interests. He hates NATO because it limits his ability to use force and terror to control Russia's neighbors.
Force and terror? Like victorian england or post Marshall usa?
ReplyDelete