[redcarpet]

Some might recall of promises made to Gorbachev in the dwindling years of the USSR regarding NATO to assuage Russian fears of possible future expansion. It's worse than before, apparently.

In the final days of the USSR, Gorbachev made an astonishing concession: Gorbachev permitted a unified Germany to join a hostile military alliance run by the global superpower, though Germany alone had almost destroyed Russia twice in the century. There was a quid pro quo, recently clarified. In the first careful study of the original documents, Mark Kramer, apparently seeking to refute charges of U.S. duplicity, in fact shows that it went far beyond what had been assumed. It turns out, Kramer wrote this year in The Washington Quarterly, that Bush senior and Secretary of State James Baker promised Gorbachev that "no NATO forces would ever be deployed on the territory of the former GDR . . . NATO's jurisdiction or forces would not move eastward.'' They also assured Gorbachev "that NATO would be transforming itself into a more political organization." There is no need to comment on that promise. What followed tells us a lot more about the Cold War itself, and the world that emerged from its ending.

[Ombrageux]

I never understood why it mattered what alliance Germany was a part of. If the Germans wanted to be belligerent, they would be, if they wanted to be peaceful, they would be. And it would have precious little to do with institutional niceties like NATO, which are little more than pieces of paper and gentleman's clubs for underemployed military officers. Naturally, U.S. interventionism in much of the world predates the Cold War - though it was expanded by it - and continued far beyond. The Cold War anti-communist ideology of the U.S. sometimes served as the excuse for selfish interventionism, and sometimes prompted it (whether through Reaganite crusading or I'm-not-soft liberals). The end of the Cold War and the persistence American imperialism tells us there was obviously more at work than the alleged machinations of Moscow and Beijing. There is an ideology of American nationalism, not significantly different from those of other empires, which views American domination of the world and the good of the world to be synonymous. It is hubris and a price will be paid for it.

[pikachu]

Some might recall of promises made to Gorbachev in the dwindling years of the USSR regarding NATO to assuage Russian fears of possible future expansion.

Why would the west even take the Soviet concerns into consideration? By the time of the negotiations it was more than clear that East Germany was about to die and the rest of the Socialist camp was going to go down with it. Most of the Soviet republics themselves, including Russia, had already declared sovereignty, and the Baltic states were already de-facto independent. The west knew it was negotiating with a soon to be non-existent government.

[JohnRawls]

Why is expansion of Nato a bad thing ?

Russia might not like it but hell the countries it is expanding into like it very very much . Ukraine and Georgia are the only exceptions .

[Typhoon]

Why is expansion of Nato a bad thing ?

NATO is defunct, responsible for Europe being dragged into Afghanistan, for Russian hostility towards Europe which causes dangerous situations like Georgia and allows the US to interfere in European security and delays the development of a defence force run by Europe for Europe. Several very good reasons to say goodbye to NATO.

[Smilin' Dave]

Why is expansion of Nato a bad thing ?

To put another spin on it, if NATO becomes too big it won't actually be in a good position to perform its key functions for its members. So for example if Georgia were part of NATO when the Russians rolled in, there wasn't a whole not NATO could have done about it, it was simply too far (enhanced by the relatively short duration of the conflict).

[JohnRawls]

Like i said European countries are fine for nato..... Not Georgia which is far and probably not ukraine which will SERIOUSLY piss of Russia .

[redcarpet]

Like i said European countries are fine for nato

Why? No one's planning to attack Eastern Europe, ad we're talking about a two-tiered alliance now.

[peter_co]

Frankly I don't see how one can feel sorry for Russia on this issue. It's not as though the United States occupied or coerced the central European states into joining NATO, rather this project was enthusiastically pursued by these states and generally had broad public support. The the idea that Russia had some type of moral prerogative to dictate the future of these states based on the fact that it had dominated them militarily and politically for half a century is simply ludicrous.

[W01f]

It's not as though the United States occupied or coerced the central European states into joining NATO

No, but it certainly attempted to do these things with Ukraine, unarguably Russia's most strategically important neighbour, and one in which the majority of citizens want nothing to do with NATO. That alone discredits the idea that NATO expansion is democratic.

rather this project was enthusiastically pursued by these states and generally had broad public support.

The same could be said about Hitler and his policies.

When the issue is a potentially hostile military bloc, one that was formed for the sole purpose of opposing them, it matters not what those tiny insignificant countries want as far as Russia's security is concerned (and we all know Russia is no threat to them making membership superfluous). Perhaps you may not feel sorry for them; and perhaps you've also forgotten about the tens of of millions of souls who've already payed the price of allowing the nation to be surrounded and overrun by its supposed allies.

The the idea that Russia had some type of moral prerogative to dictate the future of these states based on the fact that it had dominated them militarily and politically for half a century is simply ludicrous.

No, their moral right is not based on their history of controlling Eastern and Central Europe. That would indeed be ludicrous. Their moral right is based on their obligation to protect their vast lands, resources and most of all, citizens. I realize this is hard for many Russophobic Eastern-Europeans to comprehend, for whom history only goes back some 75 years, but it is indeed the reality. At least from their point of view, and anyone else's who believes in a nation's right to defend itself.

[peter_co]

No, but it certainly attempted to do these things with Ukraine, unarguably Russia's most strategically important neighbour, and one in which the majority of citizens want nothing to do with NATO.

What does this have to do with the Central European states in the 90's? The situation was completely different. We shouldn't reinterpret history based on some perception of a subsequent mistake.

Their moral right is based on their obligation to protect their vast lands, resources and most of all, citizens.

Certainly, but they have no greater moral right to protect their citizens than do the Central European countries. That's why I find the indignation of the author of the OP so absurd. Of course, one can't blame Russia for wanting to enhance its security, but neither can the Central European states be blamed for wanting the assurance of NATO membership, or the United States for not taking active steps to deny them this assurance.

[W01f]

Certainly, but they have no greater moral right to protect their citizens than do the Central European countries. That's why I find the indignation of the author of the OP so absurd. Of course, one can't blame Russia for wanting to enhance its security, but neither can the Central European states be blamed for wanting the assurance of NATO membership, or the United States for not taking active steps to deny them this assurance.

Assurance for what? I agree that those countries have an obligation to protect their citizens. But from what? ...Exactly. There is no real or perceived threat to them, any more than there is to Finland, Belarus, Sweden or Mongolia. The actual purpose of their NATO membership is a mystery, and viewed with great suspicion. Thus NATO membership is not a moral obligation for these countries. In fact there's a serious argument to made that it's just serving the imperialist agenda of America and co, which you've heard me rant on before.

And from the Russian angle, you know how they see things. If they know they're not a threat (and they obviously aren't sitting around planning the invasion of Poland), then the only other explanation for NATO expansion is that it's hostile. The Soviet Union is gone, but NATO is fulfilling all its dreams nonetheless, breaking its promise not to. That justifies their position from a moral standpoint.

The fact is, NATO shouldn't even exist anymore, much less be expanding. Europe and Russia need to integrate (at least to a degree), while the Anglosphere sets up something similar to NATO but smaller and less burdensome.