“After the collapse of one pillar of the former bipolar world order, it became fashionable in the West to think that the world order could become unipolar, with the U.S. at the helm. In the 1990s, Russia descended into its worst crisis since 1917. It not only ceased to be a superpower, it suffered political, economic, and social collapse as well. It was not even clear that Russia would survive physically. So, perhaps believing that Russian interests and views didn’t matter anymore, Clinton made the decision to enlarge NATO to the east. But just because Russia couldn’t do anything about it at the time doesn’t mean that we accepted it. We never did. Since then the process of NATO expansion has been unstoppable, and so has the subsequent chain of events.”
“It’s not that we view NATO as an existential threat right now. But Russia cannot accept that a country next door would be a member of a military alliance that is hostile to Russia. We are not opposed to Ukraine being democratic. It’s fine with us if a neighbor has a different political and social system. But not a member of an adversarial bloc. Security is the central issue.”
So says from Alexei Gromyko, who "as director of the official Institute of Europe, often serves in an advisory role to today’s Russian leaders" interviewed in a very interesting article by Fred Weir on the way Russians (those in power at least) view the West. Alexei Gromyko is the grandson of Andrei Gromyko, the seemingly eternal Soviet Foreign Minister from 1957 to 1985. He was wittily called 'the Abominable No-man', a sobriquet dating from his time as Stalin's ambassador to the UN.
"But Russia cannot accept that a country next door would be a member of a military alliance that is hostile to Russia"
ReplyDeleteObviously. There is really not the slightest justification for NATO's existence. It is a dagger pointed at Russia's heart. NATO is a menace.
What amazes me is that so many people cannot see the any nation would consider a hostile military alliance on its doorstep as a threat. How would Americans feel if Canada was a member of an overtly hostile overtly anti-US alliance? How would Britons feel if Ireland was a member of an overtly hostile overtly anti-British alliance?
And the Russians would have to be unbelievably stupid to ever again trust the United States.
You make very good points. I never asked myself if Nato had a reason to exist though I have come slowly to the conclusion that the UK should leave it. You could be right.
ReplyDeleteParkinson's Law states that organisations have a tendency to expand, irrespective of the amount of work they have to do and NATO is an example of an organisation finding reasons for its existence. Once it was fairly value free and had lots of dictatorships in its ranks but now members must be democracies. It fear more liberal wars for 'values'.
Parkinson's famous example was the increase in the number of employees at the Colonial Office while the British Empire shrunk - it had its greatest number of staff when it was folded into the Foreign Office due to a lack of colonies to administer.
Germany and Japan were disarmed because of their demonstrated potential to be aggressor states. Russia was not disarmed but it is cornered by NATO due to its demonstrated potential to be an aggressor state. I would not fall for the crocodile tears of a nation who's citizens are proud of the Soviet Union's expansionary past, who dream of a long lost empire, and who in a large majority approve of a past leader like Stalin.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand why some on the populist right nowadays support Russia, as if an atheist society (rapidly becoming Muslim, according to recent trends) whose people worship authoritarian leftism could ever be an ally.
Russia was not disarmed but it is cornered by NATO due to its demonstrated potential to be an aggressor state.
DeleteThe United States has not only demonstrated its potential to be an aggressor state, it has proved itself to be an actual aggressor state. Maybe the US should be disarmed?
*whose citizens (I would like to blame my embarrassing slipup on autocorrect, whether that's credible or not)
ReplyDeletePeople who quite like Franco seem to think Putin is Franco, when he is nothing of the sort. Putin is not a Christian conservative. Nor is he a Communist. He is a cunning KGB operative who does not think very far ahead. I see him as in some ways a sort of Russian De Gaulle but a De Gaulle who marched into an independent Algeria and annexed part of it, launching proxy wars in other parts.
ReplyDelete