Did NATO promise Russia never to expand to the east? | DW News
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 тра 2024
- Just before his army invaded Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin outlined his motivations in a speech.
His main argument: NATO's eastward expansion.
He blamed the extension of the military alliance ever closer to Russia’s borders and accused Western leaders of breaking alleged promises to never do so.
But experts disagree on whether that’s true.
Subscribe: ua-cam.com/users/deutsche...
For more news go to: www.dw.com/en/
Follow DW on social media:
►Facebook: / deutschewellenews
►Twitter: / dwnews
►Instagram: / dwnews
Für Videos in deutscher Sprache besuchen Sie: / dwdeutsch
#Putin #Russia #NATO
Speaking as a citizen of one of those countries that were allowed to join NATO after 1991, I sure am glad we managed to join. My country directly borders Ukraine. If we weren't in NATO, right now I'd be packing my suitcases and trying to figure out how to immigrate to the UK or Germany. People who talk about Putin's side, and whether the West side broke its promise to Russia, tend to forget there is a third side - our side. They talk about us like we're a piece of territory, to be assigned to either East or West. We're not just territory, we're people. And we made a choice. NATO didn't "expand" to include the former Warsaw Pact countries. We asked to join and were accepted.
Oh god remove us from.....
US&THEM 🗣️🙏💯😵😭🤬
Your nationality?
@@jirachi-wishmaker9242 : Probably Polish, judging from the number of z’s in his username 😉
Exactly!
Couldn't agree more
I love how Russia likes to mention an imaginary treaty but completely disregards the 1994 Budapest Memorandum that guarantees Ukraines 1994 Borders....signed by Russia, US, UK and Ukraine
US and UK should’ve enforced it too.
F Russia
"Treaties? Treaties? We don't need no stinkin' treaties!"
@@vk45de54
They are enforcing it
Sanctioning Russia and arming Ukraine with the latest NATO weaponry
@@unduloid
Russia: "theyre mean because they dont honor treaties"
Also Russia: "we dont honor treaties"
Didn't Russia pledge to respect Ukraine's sovereignty and territory in 1994?
well nato expended before 1994)
People who mention the Budapest Memorandum forget there's a myriad of international treaties and Charters protecting a country's sovereignty, not only Budapest.
The fact is since the U. S. GB began to interpret Article 2 and 59 of the U. N. Charter in the 1990's to permit Preemptive Defensive Humanitarian Military Interventions, state sovereignty is no longer guaranteed by law. If anyone feels threatened, by anyone anywhere, true or not, thanks to Pax Americana it's a jungle out there.
I would also remind you Ukraine's nukes were never theirs to give up. Ukraine never had access to or control of the SOVIET arsenal, neither the infrastructure to maintain and operate it. When the Soviets left they took their nukes with them.
So the Budapest argument you people like to pull out of the hat is just another hollow, knee JERK western talking point. In others words BS
@@AndryFateev But there was no pact Russian signed on NATO.
@@ntf5211 call it a coup how many times you want, but that same president of ukraine never respected the reason why he was elected in the first place... To look towards Europe. We all know it was a matter of time until Russia made Ukraine a puppet state like it does with others, specially Belarus. No small country can endure a major attack on it's Sovereignty without help from major power or an alliance.
Whoever helped in coup, it truly helped Ukraines sovereignty, it was like the smooth stones on David's sling.
@@Dumpsteret1 First part is matter of interpretation, though the US interventions occured, US borders never expanded due to them. US borders technically have not expanded in over 100 year's. As for nuclear weapons maintenance facilities yes, however Ukraine had scientists and engineers to make that possible. Ability to fire lmao, Ukraine could have very easily made any necessary changes to use and maintain their facilities. Ukraine played a leading role in Nuclear technology that started in the late 1920's. Putin made it very clear during the mention of Ukraine rearming due to failures of Russia to maintain the Buddapest Memorandum that Ukraine was very capable of doing so.
The fact that Finland joining NATO didn't get much of a reaction in Russia probably suggests it wasn't about NATO.
Correct
finland is less aggressive and more willing to negotiate unlike ukraine who will greet the american military ships and nuclear weapons and place them near russian border
@@SDDanil1123 Still ruins the narrative about big, bad NATO lmao
@@SDDanil1123 maybe Ukrainians would treat you better if you hadn’t occupied their lands, killed thousands of their people and stolen thousands of their children? Russian troops in Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine prove that the only aggressive neighbor is ruzzia
@@SDDanil1123 Nato is at Russia's borders for decades. Did Putin wake up yesterday? Nato is an excuse. Putin wants to annex Ukraine. And BTW Ukraine is not Russia's backyard anymore. It is independent state.
The US did not accept Cuba having Soviet presence. Rightly so. So why should Russia accept NATO presence in Ukraine?
but the U.S didn't directly invaded Cuba and said that they would denazify them right??$@
Nato did not attack Russia/USSR. Russia has a long history of invading its neighbour what you can see today as well.
@@Blanka1100 that's right. And as what the video said that European countries are interested joining NATO not that NATO are forcing countries to be members.
@@Blanka1100 Yes, Russia has history for invade and how about NATO then? Kosovo? Afghanistan? Iraq? Libya? Both have history
@Neelesh 10 only nuclear missiles from ussr in cuba right? hehehehehe.
“But he didn’t talk about it 20 years ago” - he talked about it at least 14 years ago, in his famous Munich speech. He had kept talking about it repeatedly since then, but the West chose to ignore him
Yea, and the west thinks that politics works the same way the legal system works. Just because the US could twist the definition or events to suit their needs, doesn’t mean they’re true.
And people thing it his fault
True!! This has been his narrative since.
@@chupapi9821 Of course its his fault. Ukraine is free to Join Russia, or free to Join NATO. But forcing your neighbors into submission is never justified.
@@alexandrostheodorou8387 no trouble. I hope you don't complain when Mexico forms an alliance and receives military support from North Korea.
NATO never said they would not expand. Period
Does not matter, each country that has joined NATO was their choice. They voted for it. Russia doesn't get a say what these countries do.
Does not matter, Gorbachev and Russia was betrayed by NATO an the trust is gone. Why should Putin allow american nuclear weapons minutes away from Moscow? If its only for defense, then why shouldnt Russia be allowed to have, just for defense, russian nuclear weapons at american borders? Just to balance out the power?
NATO is a militarily alliance not an economic one. Ukraine and Russia history goes way back. Any country will not allow its neighbour to be part of military alliance. Will US allow Canada or Mexico to be part of military alliance against it ?
@@WorldCitizen-gz6fn Of course not. So why should Putin allow it, right?
So would the US allow Mexico to enter a military alliance with Russia and let Russia put troops and missiles in Mexico?
Answer is no
Therefore they're hypocrites
@@VanoArts There are Russian nuclear weapons close to the American borfers
Interesting how conversations hold a lot of water but SIGNED agreements don't have any value like the Budapest Memorandum
No agreement signed or unsigned means much to anyone involved. The sooner you learn that, the better.
Because it doesn’t fit the Kremlin narrative of course, but are we surprised? Freedom = Slavery to them lol
@@sarlaz3407 WRONG !!!
@@troy66777 CORRECT !!!
CORRECT !!!
I must say that this Kenyan politician said it best, a few weeks back when Russia invaded Ukraine. This speech “from the embers of dead empires”.
People will never agree looking backwards. Thinking like this Russia is actually owned by Mongolia, and most of Europe is owned by Italy.
Putin can not use history to break all existing laws, that’s just bad rhetoric.
That's ignoring the fact that Putin is trying to form an ethnostate. I think he's basically pursuing the same goal as countries like Japan and China.
You mean like Israel as well?
@@myviews9369 there is no rule of law in Russia so you point about contacts is I'll informed. also consider the Cinese practice wherein no contract is binding on both parties unless the wording states it is binding.... unless you are the government and you can do what you like
@@myviews9369 those countries are not in any contract with Russia, its their peoples willingly to join NATO, join democratic process, freedom of speech, freedom to critisize goverment and its policies.. remember Brexit?, peoples of Britain decided to leave European Union through vote, nobody point gun at them..
How about the most recent minks agreements in 2014 where Ukraine agree to give donbas and lunask special territory government. Instead Ukraine have been attacking those territory
This is a great example of Orwellian memory holing. It is common knowledge and a hard fact that NATO made promises that they broken
Stop lying. There is no paper signed that you can show me and who is Russia to demand anything like that? A special need country? Nobody cares what Russia wants. Eastern Europe is not russan backyard anymore. Deal with it and stop complaining. Stop blaming Russia's victims for calling the police.
@@Blanka1100do you really think that this attitude towards russians will make them like the west and want to cooperate more?
@@Blanka1100so lying is okay as long as its not written down? sounds like something coming from a person with great moral compass
@@leight420 Russia broke every written agreement it signed so who is Russia to complain about some bs small talk Who is Russia to decide about other country's pact choise? Russia has nothing to say. It is not Eastern Europe's master.
@@Blanka1100 and US and UK is? The Karma of playing around Asia and middle east is onto you now... end of western hegemony is near
It started in Poland in February-June 1989 - not in East Germany. Also, in East Germany it started in 1989 (but in November), when the wall collapsed - not in 1990.
The wall didn't simply 'collapse'. It was pulled down, by those who lived there.
@@wessexdruid7598 Sure it didn't. That's a commonly used metaphor.
@@robbas_krk1510 Poland was first post communist to have free election. It was in June 1989 while The fall of Berlin Wall took place in November.
@@Blanka1100 That’s exactly what I’m saying.
What started ?
This is a big-power view of the world.
From a position in a small country, the need for alliances is clear.
Even if NATO would no longer exist, there would be some alliance of most European countries that would replace it, maybe with a more militarized Germany or Poland, France or UK at its core.
Which would be better than a country that is on the other side of the Atlantic controlling Europe and war mongering
@@lamarazmoe6438 People are so quick to forget that the reason westernEurope can feed itself enough to think about these things is because of that country across the Atlantic. That country promised the USSR, not Russia
Ucraine is not a small country, it is really big and important.
If NATO truly was what it was claiming to be, firstly it would have been dissolved after the dissolution of the USSR.
Secondly, it would have at least once proven some value in acting as it was founded to be, i.e. as an organization to protect its member countries. In short, as a *Defensive* organization. Rather, NATO has not even once defended any member country. Since it was created, NATO has been exclusively an Aggressor, bombing, invading and destroying other countries.
@@nomayor1 NATO is a hegemonic imperialist power, which is why Columbia is a member even though it's in the southern hemisphere and mostly bordered by the Pacific Ocean
There is important thing missing about definition of "expansion to the east" in 1990 - not only Warsaw PAct still existed in 1990,but also there was 80 000 Russian troops in Poland alone,and ZRussia didnt want to withdraw it even while Warsaw PAct ceased to exist. Btw. we in central and eastern Europe knew it very well,that Russian imperialism will come back sooner or later. Just want to remind,that Ukraine demanded security guarantees from Nato in 1994,when it was forced to give up their nukes. Guess,why?
OMG - thank you - that is so important to understand ! So wow: then they still gave the Status of protection in the Ukraine?. What exactly were the agreements ?
Budapest agreement, Russia guaranteed Ukraine peace and sovereignity
@@gailalbers1430 Russia is in the Ukraine because Kyiv had killed 13,000 civilians and NATO was doing nothing to stop it. End of story.
When that issue is done (if Russia has to win the Ukraine that is what will happen) the rollback on the expansion solution will begin as that is a separate issue that Brussels is involved in rather than the US. Brussels and the EU World Banks fund NATO rather than they fund the US.
It isn't like NATO doesn't back away from any treaty they sign, whenever they want, anyway.
@@waynegabler6570 tell me, why are you tripping so hard? What 13k are you talking about, this is all Putin’s bs.
@@waynegabler6570
Flagged for misinformation
Greetings from Finland. Interesting that Shifrinson and DW think that it is in the power of individual nations to dictate the security choice of sovereign nations. Nato did not expand to the east but Central European nations applied to join.
And now Finland!
I very much doubt whether anyone in power at the time actually saw the breakup of the Soviet Union coming a year in advance. My memory of the fall of the Berlin Wall was that analysts, and political and military were taken completely by surprise - and were totally flabbergasted when the Soviet Union fell apart a year later, though it was apparent to many ordinary people that it was (in both cases) a matter of when, not whether these events happened. Certainly that was the feeling amongst my circle, and none of had special information. So, James Baker could not have promised to bar Eastern European countries from NATO. It would have been inconceivable to him that the issue would even arise in his lifetime.
NATO leadership did not favour eastward expansion, most likely because they didn't believe that former Warsaw Pact countries feared Russia and actually wanted to be Western European - the Cold War in Europe was based on the idea that alliances and politics were static: 'everyone' knew that. To allow (for example) Poland to join would be to invite the cuckoo into the nest.
Look into it man. This guy Bruce P Jackson was a vice president for strategy at Lockheed Martin the year he left, he went on to the board for eastward expansion on NATO board. He was the main man behind getting nato east. Which comes with the condition that countries joining are to upgrade their fighter jets..
You're the dude giving wedding vows while eyeing the bridesmaids.
The dude isNATO.
@@Hhajsjeieirhrbbr look into it? Start with the Gorbachev who was the person with whom the Americans were negotiating with. You no what he said??? Nyet, no promises were made nor did he even ask
@@Hhajsjeieirhrbbrthat is really funny. Do you know whobwas the first country to join NATO partnership for pesce? Yes, Russia in 1995! Then followed by Nato Rusia council NCR. So dont give me this bs about bato expansion s d Russia having a problem with it!
If the russians wanted to keep their sphere of influence then maybe they should have done a better job. We always talk about NATO expansion on the east but we forget something. A country must Want to join NATO. NATO cant just force themselves into a foreign country, so its telling that a lot of eastern countries after the collapse wanted to join NATO and EU to pursue the western style of life. Russia makes so much money from their energy exports and yet outside of moscow and ST.petersburg the rest of the country lives in squalor and corruption. There have been many cases were corrupt politicians got exposed and never had any punishement because they are on Putin's payroll while at the same time any real politcal oposition putin had was either killed or thrown in jail. The western lifestyle isnt perfect of course , but at least its a much better alternative to what russia offers.
I guess there is a reason why A LOT of Russians look to immigrate to the "evil West" right ? If Russia is SOOO perfect what are they doing in todays EU ? ... but yes lets keep believing all the lies that Russia is perfect, and a superpower (which it isn't)
Yes but it is not an ideal world. They must still be accepted into NATO which is not within their country, even if they WANT to join, NATO has to approve it and go against the assurance they issued to the Russians. It is also a direct move AGAINST Russia to continually expand without a care in the world knowing fully well that the entire purpose of the alliance is to corner Russia.
Countries do not want to join any block or alliance, their leaders do. Previous Ukrainian leaders wanted to keep ties with Moscow, the current govt wanted with the west. Germany is the same country that started ww1 and ww2 but now takes orders from US and UK as the leaders are like that.
@@mysticwatersoo ??? The UK isnt even part of the EU anymore. Germany has the strongest position amongst all of the EU member states. How in your mind does that position translate to "taking orders from USA and the UK". Mind boggling
You don’t have to join NATO to pursue “western style of life”, whatever it means.
NATO has to decide if they want to include member or not. The final decision is to be made by NATO itself. They made the promise.
And they lied.
Thus launching a series of events that led to our current situation.
Remember East Germany, the wall, the many people that had lost their life trying to escape, when the Soviet Union had invaded Hungary for declaring it's independence? That's why more boarding countries with the Soviet Union had joined NATO
We remember. The bully will never win. The Union is stronger than the lone wolf.
Not if he lone wolf armed with enough nukes. He's winning the war before it started, and he won't back out before he gets what he wants. Ukraine is being sacrificed. No one can win a fight with a madman who got nothing much to lose. We're all in the darkest hours.
Yes I remember watching it on TV was very big news
Nope. Post Soviet countries joined NATO because they had Russian tanks on their streets before trying to "restore the peace and order". Former soviet block break away countries know what it is like when Russia " brings peace and order."
@@yinli757 please don't say that Ukraine is going to win this illegal War that has been forced on them
3:26 Ukraine was not promised membership. The secretary general at the time expressed his belief that Ukraine would become a member, but that is no guarantee or promise of future membership. While NATO has its' open door policy, NATO allies did't regard Ukranian membership as being realistic in the forseeable future.
Would russians be so dumb not to have it documented?! Something so important?
Maybe if he wasn't a dictator who wanted to dominate politics of the surrounding countries, then countries wouldn't seek to join NATO to protect themselves.
Yeah, Putin also broke the promise that Russia will become democratic country
@@mitzo
A country that size can't become one
China isn't one
India is struggling
America is two party duopoly
why you join NATO ? do you realize all US lead NATO countries have blood of innocent civilians on their hands? Palestine Iraq Syria yamen and Libya either directly or indirectly also we all know now how weak Russian army and on its peak Russian economy as big as state of Texas in US and the history and geopolitics in west Europe region Ukraine must be neutral so by contrast Ukraine war is west fault ? Putin is a dictator so why take a chance if we know it'll harm innocent civilians, Ah yes according to NATO this is acceptable losses
@@jirachi-wishmaker9242 are you trying to make excuses for why Putin is allowed to make himself president for life?
@@alexrowe7063 no Putin is a mass murderers
Am I giving excuses for him?
Russia has no say over anything. Stop letting them think they do
But they do, though. They are the 800 lb gorilla living next door. Ignoring their concerns is what got us to this point.
@@dannyevilcat Just tell the gorilla "bad boy" and throw some rocks at it...that will fix the problem.
@@dannyevilcat The gorilla has forgotten from that he had stolen Siberia from an Asian elephant.
Ofcourse they have a say at the end of the day Russia has dangerous weapons and Germany this exactly what Germany needs nuclear weapons because nato can't be trusted.
@@dannyevilcat No the fact that they have a crazy leader got us to this point.
1. Bro at that time they were not talking about other countries from the eastern block , the expansion was in to eastern Germany , what NATO extension east are you talking about when Warsaw Pact was still alive ? This is complete nonsense. I understand if those promises would have been made after the dissolution of Warsaw pact and even so …
2. Any agreement with legal implications should be only in writing, signed with witnesses and ratified from time to time to keep it relevant. Any verbal promises at the dinner table from politicians who had no authority of making such buddy buddy promises are hilarious. US or any other NATO member if had an issue with expansion could have veto it in a heartbeat. I don’t believe for a second that Soviet or Russians who never had issues breaking treaties they signed, were so naive or gullible to take some words as legally binding.. They would have pushed a paper and pen in front of that person in a second. Give me a break, this is laughable
Exactly. Besides Nato expansion is not a reason for Putin to invade Ukraine. It is an excuse to justify Putin's sick idea to annex Ukraine. He wants Ukraine and he could invade non Nato neighbours only.
I was Boeing's representative to Central Europe from 1990 to 1998. I set up airlines in the region. The reality was Moscow was desperate for cash. They did everything they could to make themselves look like a good investment. Moscow would have never asked for guarantees in this cash-strapped environment. The former Soviet Block countries were in shambles. The US and western Europe were reluctant to make investments in the region. There is absolutely no possibility that Russia asked for guarantees against NATO expansion. In fact, at one point Russia asked to become part of NATO. The repression and death under Soviet occupation were horrendous. As time progressed, the former Soviet Block approached NATO for protection against future Russian aggression. Simultaneously, they approached the EU to gain access to cash. There were no promises! It was an inevitable evolution.
The notion on NATO 'expansion' is ridiculous. I'm from a Baltic country, and we were desperate to join NATO. There was no 'expansion' because NATO didn't even want us! They tried to convince us that Russia is no longer a threat, to which we replied that if it's not a threat then there's no danger of accepting us, is there? This negotiation went back and forth for many many years and it took careful diplomacy, patience and lots of preparation to convice NATO to finally accept us. There were many then and are many now that say we should not have been accepted in the first place. Russia's inferiority complex and its excuse of feeling 'threatened' for no reason is its own problem.
It's not necessary to follow Putins rhetoric. NATO is not moving East. Eastern EU is moving West.
It has no difference for Russia. Russia can act on its own to counter that.
Well put, Shaddy.
this piece fails to mention the Budapest Protocol. Ukraine was once the 3rd largest nuclear power in the world. They gave their weapons to Russia in exchange for a guarantee of territorial integrity. Russia has failed to abide by this agreement.
What difference does it make if it was promised? It happened, they , nato continued to move to the east.
Nato does not expand by force. Countries apply to join with their own free will unlike Warsaw pact. Why did they join? Because Russia keeps invading and annexing its non Nato neighbours just because it could so Nato exists and expands for a reason. If Russia was a good neighbour, there would be no need to join Nato in order to be secured. Blaming Nato expansion is like blaming a victim for calingthe police because she did not want to be hurt anymore. Russia has nothing to say and can not decide about other country's pact choice.Putin invaded Ukraine because he wants to annex Ukraine. He did it because he could. He could do it because Ukraine is not Nato member. Nato is an excuse for Russia's greed.
Putin should really start to think why "his friends" wanted to join NATO
For real. Honestly the way Putin has talked about this makes him appear like a schoolgirl that wasn’t invited to eat with the popular girls at lunch. Petty, angry, and completely deluded.
He is paranoid 😹
He saw NATO's performance all over asia & africa
Freedom & democracy everywhere😹
@@myviews9369 you do realize NATO doesn’t have weapons in Ukraine? Least of all nukes. Why’d the US bother with nuclear armed subs and ICBMs if they could just stick short range nuclear missiles a few hundred kilometers from Russian territory?
Maybe because of a political putch 2014 supported from USA?
Why are you just parroting this argument which was debunked long time ago? @DutchVII
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but those assurances "not another inch to the East" were given in February 1990 to the SOVIET UNION - a DIFFERENT legal and political entity to Russia. The Soviet Union dissolved in December 1991, and all promises made to it, even all treaties (which this wasn't) dissolved with it.
Russia is a DIFFERENT entity from the Soviet Union, and nobody made any such promises to RUSSIA!
By your logic, then why SHOULD Putin respect the 1994 treaty? It was signed under Yeltsin, not him.
Putin obviously didn't feel bound by any supposed assurances from NATO to a non existent soviet union either. He discussed the possibility of Russia joining NATO in the early 2000s with Clinton.
Aren't you a smart one?
Russia is a legal successor of USSR. The agreement about it was signed by soviet republics.
@@tanyam5471 So Putin was breaking this supposed agreement not to expand NATO when he discussed the possibility of Russia joining NATO with Clinton in the early 2000s was he?
I'd also like to point out that these conversations were made with the Soviet Union and not the Russian Federation.
The Russian Federation is the official successor of the Soviet Union
Imo it should've been stressed a little more that NATO did not say "let's go east". Countries like Poland and Czechia said "Can we join NATO?" It's a very important distinction.
Its not so much about "Eastern expansion" as it is about the People of Eastern Europe wanting to go West. For reasons...
Exactly!
There's a difference between joining a EU and NATO...
so if Canada and Mexico chooses to join a chinese NATO, America will be cool right?
@@Ursfrndlyneena But they don't want that. That's because the US does not threaten to invade them unlike Russia is doing in Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus and Kazakhstan.
After the dissolution of USSR, the "disputes" between Russia with Chechnya, Moldova and Georgia were the reasons which scared these countries to distance themselves from Russia. Beware of history revisionist/pootin-apologists attempting to rewrite history, they are many on the internet.
It was a conversation, not a treaty. Russia’s poor treatment of it’s neighbors is the main reason why nations want to join NATO.
yes, russia is its own worst enemy. particularly under the leadership of the psychopathic war criminal
Right? Look what happened to Ukraine, they didnt join NATO and got invaded.
Not to the mention the NATO-Russia founding act allowed for the unlimited expansion of NATO and is actually singed by Russia
@@myviews9369 Ukraine signed a written treaty with Russia in 1997. It was Russia who did not honor the agreement in 2014 in their annexation of Crimea. Saying they are not a country is simply not true.
@@myviews9369 None of this happened except in the minds of paranoid and psychopathic Russian politicians. The Budapest Memorandum, an agreement made between Ukraine, Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom in 1994 was another agreement not honored by Russia. Get your facts straight.
The countries wanted to join NATO. Their country > Ruzzia’s feelings.
I think 2 nuclear empowered empires with a lot of neutral countries in between as a buffer-zone is a wonderful thing !!!
Russia is not a super power and Eastern Europeans are free people, they are not soviet slaves anymore. Cold war era is over. USSR is gone. Deal with it. Russia has nothing to say. Russia is cheap gas station with pathetic gdp.
The nation’s who joined nato did so freely ,willingly specifically and determinedly to distance them selves from Russia, given there previous experiences within the old USSR. There self determination cannot be denied and given the recent actions by Russia it seems there decision was wise.
Most of the post-Soviet nations experienced horrible treatment by the USSR, including huge supression and human rights violations. It's not that NATO expanded to the east, but nations were desperate to disconnect from USSR supression and looked for help. Russia can only blame itself for mistreating neighboring nations and not blame NATO.
Looks like he just convinced at least 2 more countries to join. Nice work Vlad.
@@jacqdanieles Also made Chine reconsider relationship with Russia. Putin smart, but he's getting old with he's ways
Well why don't u let cuba reinstate ties with russia and see how America determines its decision.
Learn to spell
As a person, whove spent 1/2 of my life in Ukraine, 1/4 in Germany and 1/4 in Russia I'm very thankful to you for this video.
We need more videos about facts to oppose the manipulations in the official media and unofficial "rumor" channels (on both sides).
Which official media
@@Chinaziland the corporate ran state media like cnn msm and even fox. abc nbc reports the same cia talking points. There is a lot of evidence on it. Watch the latest videos from Jimmy Dore and George Galloway even if you disagree with them because you guys have opposing perceptions. They are honest and have good evidence to back it up
@@Chinaziland DW is funded by from the German budget.
DW news is LYING by OMMISSION , as most lying news agencies do.
What did they leave out ?
(1) Putin was very friendly to NATO and after the dissolution of the USSR and Germany's entrance into NATO, Putin asked to join NATO , which would have been great for world peace and end global competition between NATO and it's historic enemies Russia and Germany.
(2) NATO refused !
So DW forgot to tell you, that peace was an option and that Putin was the main sensible and rational person.
DW forgot to tell you that the Conflict between NATO and Russia is as a consequence of NATO's denial of Russia to join NATO after the allowed Germany.
Don't you think that this is a VERY IMPORTANT thing that should not be left out of this video ?
---- > Ukraine and o ther former Soviet satellites were to remain neutral; that would mean no westward expansion by Russia as well. No eastward expansion was negated by Russia's invasions of Chechnya, Georgia, and Crimea. Not only has Putin put its military in Belarius, it had its Constitution modified to allow nuclear weapons.. So, Russia has nukes in Belarius.
It was always Russia that caused the expansion of NATO and the self determination of those independent countries that chose to join is what made it happen. Russia has no reasonable grievance.
This couldn't be more irrelevant. Who said what and when they said it??? The obvious point is The Ukraine does NOT want to be part of Russia. Historically Russia should be broken up and returned to rightful owners. It time it is done for them because we feel like it and that's good enough logic & long overdue. Slava Ukraine.
It just breaks my heart into pieces SO painfully that my country is treated like some kind of marble in a game. WE ARE PEOPLE TOO!
Marble in Russian game. If independent countries wanted to join Nato, it's their business. Not Russia's business.
What country is that?
Ukraine was cheated by the Budapest memorandum. Maybe there is more
credibility with nukes.
@@alaric_ Libya Iraq were invaded by NATO brethren for cheap supply of oil.
@@alaric_ You dont know how geo politics and security works.
How about the BUDAPEST MEMORANDUM ? which was a WRITTEN and SIGNED deal in which RUSSIA, USA and UK SIGNED to guarantee Ukraine's safety and sovereignty in exchange for its huge nuclear arsenal
@@m.k.3145 😂😂😂
What about it? Do you mean anyone but russia is allowed to break an agreement? Neither the US nor UK is guaranteeing ukrain's safety now. The deal is worthless.
@@m.k.3145 what about Russian-Ukrainian Friendship Treaty - Russia broke it in 2014
@@tw0million Россия ничего не нарушала. В Крыму прошел референдум, где люди абсолютным большинством проголосовали за воссоединение с Россией. Международное право соблюдено, прецедент Косово. Кроме того, Крым это русская земля и народ Крыма никто не спрашивал, когда его подарил Украине Хрущев и даже тогда это было в рамках СССР. Крым вошёл в состав Украины в 1991 году на основании межгосударственного договора между Республикой Крым и Украиной, у Крыма был свой президент и конституция, а Украина выслала президента Крыма и отменила в одностороннем порядке конституцию Крыма, изменила ее под себя. Крымчане были преданы Ельциным в 1991 году, но все равно, находясь в украинской оккупации почти 23 года остались русскими. Украина с 1991 по 2014 год проводила тотальную украинизацию Крыма, заставляла крымчан отказаться от родного русского языка и от своей Родины России. Но Крым дождался исторической справедливости и в 2014 году вернулся домой. Учите историю!
USSR ceased to exist. NATO leaders have never signed any treaty that they would not admit new members. On the other hand Russia SIGNED a treaty that it guarantees borders and independence of of Ukraine.
Simplistic view by Germans towards Eastern Europe and the sovereignty of other countries. This is a hit piece against democratic decisions of free people.
It’s almost like when Russia invades its neighbors constantly, its neighbors started wanting assurances that they wouldn’t be invaded. Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine, no one wants to be next. When Russia recognized Chechen independence, then went and invaded and took over in the late 1990s, can you really blame half of Eastern Europe from joining NATO in the following decade? If NATO didn’t add those countries, Russia would’ve reconquered the Baltics a decade ago. The complaint Russia has is that it wasn’t allowed to do that. Russia was a declining imperial power that wanted to restore its empire, and its former colonies no longer wanted to be a part of it. A conversation in the 90s that was never part of a treaty does not bind NATO to not accept those countries.
What do you do when you tell a nation that they are sovereign and can choose their own course? They look at the governmental organization preferred by NATO - representative democracy - and they say ''we want that". Then they make a strong application for membership. What happens then?
Then you wonder 'what if the Warsaw Pact had survived and Germany had petitioned for membership'? Would Russia have vetoed the petition, or would they have welcomed Germany in with open arms?
The United States is not behind the strong push for NATO membership among these former Soviet ''client states". The people want it. They think they NEED it. This Russian war against Ukraine only makes them certain of it.
Well, it is not up to people to decide if their country will join NATO. Russia didn’t get promises from their countries - promises where given by NATO. So it is up to NATO to decide if they want to keep the promise or not - by taking in this countries.
@@russellf.3396
It is up to people to decide if they will apply to NATO.
@@russellf.3396 you're totally missing the point, NATO was no imposing threat to Russia. Members of NATO, most of European countries were trading with Russia and creating more economical dependencies despite Putin's wrong doings in Georgia, Crimea, backing Lukashenko regim after lost election, and finally his undemocratic and repressive action towards Russian people. Western countries didn't wanted confrontation they wanted to trade. Some believed that close trading ties will guarantee the peace but Putin has his own vision of imperial Russia and now we have a war. NATO is just an excuse btw Ukraine in past (after Crimea annexation) asked to join NATO and it was refused. So really Russia has no leg to stand on.
If NATO accepted Ukraine as a member this might not happened caused Putin might think twice before invading Ukraine…
N.A.T.O. is a force for good in the world!
I can honestly see how Russia would not want NATO expanding closer to its border. Doesn’t give them the right to invade a sovereign country though.
Same thing happened in cuba -america with vise versa situation
Just stop influencing , provoking , and live in peace
@@rediettadesse2828 ...except it's not. Russia can't invade US from Cuba.
Russia can invade the rest of Europe.
@@rediettadesse2828 Sorry, if russia was a better neighbor, maybe these nations would not have wanted to join NATO in the first place...but constantly implying that these nations should not be free, makes them highly suspicious of russia.
Same goes for the russian view of history...while russia claims to have "liberated" Poland and the baltics...these nations wholeheartedly disagree...
@@rediettadesse2828 Then Russia should stop bullying her neighbours, stop interfering in their internal matters. Realise that USSR is over and she has no right over these states.
@@rediettadesse2828 while I am inclined to agree, NATO isn’t attempting to wage war with Russia. It’s not NATO’s fault former Warsaw Pact countries choose to join NATO. Given how Soviet Russia treated its neighbors, such as Hungary, it’s no surprise Eastern Europe massively distrusts Russia. That isn’t to say the US is entirely benevolent, but it’s more so an issue of choosing the more benevolent of two superpowers. Unfortunately for Russia, they’ve not done much to inspire trust in its former Soviet allies.
Yes he said not one inch further.. but he made that promise to the Soviet Union.. which ended up collapsing.
We made no promise to Russia which is not the Soviet Union.
There was no written agreement, just bs small talk behing the scene. Besides Russia has no damn right to decide about other country's pact choices. Eastern Europeans are free people, they do what is the best for them and they do not have to care about Putin's paranoia and bs excuses. Russia simply loves annexing. Nato is bs excuse only.
Pause @3:04 and read the paragraph for yourself. It is not phrased as a fact but as a mention that it ‘would be important’. This is not a guarantee at all !
The other two sources don’t contain any guarantees either.
If we want to talk about treaties being broken, why not talk about the Budapest treaty of 1994, that was suppose to gurantee Ukraines security by the Russians and the US if it gave up their nukes. Russia always talks about how the West is unfair, but they have proven completely untrustworthy and definet need for NATO still.
The Ukrainian government forfeited its security guarantee when it decided to seek NATO membership.
not to mention that from a legal standpoint crimea seceded legally with a vote, the fact that the west ( and only the west) doesn't recognize it is their problem, same thing in the donbass region, putin didn't recognize them for a reason all these years
My thought exactly! By invading Ukraine, it broke that promise.
Stay safe, stay sane, Stay Strong Ukraine 🇺🇦
💩🍌N🐵A🦍T🐵O🍌💩
LOL😃😃😃LOL.
🍌NEED I SAY MORE.🍌
If that Actor of Ukraine Zelensky would have surrendered to Russia all of this would have been over a long time ago.
🇷🇺🌟🇷🇺 RUSSIA IS GREAT**GLORY TO RUSSIA**GOD GIVE RUSSIA VICTORY.
🇷🇺🌟🇷🇺
@Denise Michelle Mosse You are as racist and xenophobic as Mr, "Lying is in their DNA" James Clapper.
Putin never keeps his promise to Ukraine too. So he is going to Hokkaido next since that was "verbally" communicated in WW2. This emo man lives in the past.
yes, my grandfather promised me russia west of the urals.
Russia also broke the Russian-Ukrainian Friendship Treaty when they attacked in 2014
From my understanding, Russia agreed to honor the sovereignty of the newly independent republics, which would include their right to pursue NATO and or EU membership.
Russia wanted to join NATO themselves in 1991. Putin also tried to negotiate later, but they also refused to satisfy conditions of NATO.
I get those westerners want to understand what is inside of Putin's and russians heads, but there is pure imperialism. They occupy ex-USSR territories just because they feel entitled to it. For them, the Victory day is celebration, holiday, they scream on streets "We can repeat it", they dress up their toodlers in military uniform.
DW, stop looking for some reasons of starting the war. Sometimes, it can be that simple, Russia wants to expand colonies and execute genocides, so the territories never demand independance again.
There is one big difference between NATO and Warsaw pact, NATO nation's applied to became members of the alliance, Warsaw pact was forced by Russia, can't think of one country that joined warzaw pact voluntary, they were either occupied or threatened.
Excellent point!
That is irrelevant. Promises were made in order to agree on the dismantling of the ussr. Those promises were broken five times, Russian complains were ignored. After all, what could a bankrupted state do ? Turns out : a lot.
incorrect, we were not occupied but ''liberated'' from nato by ussr in 1968 😁
.... and remember that the Warsaw Pact melted along with the death of the Soviet Union. Today there is nothing called Warsaw Pact!
@@yves3560 An agreement with the Soviet Union carries little weight when that government collapsed and the dictator who took over what followed ignores their treaties and invades neighbors like Chechnya and Georgia. Putin may want to revive the Soviet Union, but he doesn't have the power to subjugate squat. The most he can do is bomb civilians, take heavy losses and destroy Russia's economy.
Mr. Shifrinson failed to mention that Mikhail Gorbachev first proposed Russia joining NATO in 1990.....And Russia is East of NATO.....(He must have missed that class...lol...)
Even Vlad tried to join in his early career
And of course what is never mentioned is that Ukraine asked to be a member of NATO and not the other way around. Poland and Hungary asked for membership hours after getting rid of the Warsaw Pact troops that went back to Russia in 1991. And they waited patiently for it until 1999 .
Proof in Ukraine's case: Both France and Germany vetoed (I repeat VETOED) their candidacy on more than one occasion. One surely can't blame the Yanks for that? Some are playing politics again, claiming to be historians.....
Russia pledged to allow free elections in Eastern European Countries after WW2. Why are you so obsessed about broken promises we made to them, but are completely oblivious to promises they made and broke in the past related to the very same countries?
Besides, NATO was not imposed on Eastern Europe, they chose to join it and voted for it in a referendums. Why should they be concerned about decisions made for them years before? Sovereign countries should be allowed to decide their own path. Making deals with totalitarian states and deciding fate of other nations with them is an old song of neo-colonialism and thank god it was scrapped.
Very well, Putin will put missiles in Cuba then.
there was only one referendum in eastern europe on the matter of NATO. In Hungary in 1998. All the other countries did not conduct referendums.
After watching this video and looking at many of the comments, not all of them because 8000+ comments is a lot, I have come to my own conclusions. There may well have been some under the table promises and talks about that one should give Russia some promises regarding NATOS expansion in eastern Europe. But the fact is, in my opinion, that there are no real promises made, and absolutely not in any agreements. One can argue that NATO has been showing neglect in handling this question but the fact that Russia use this as an excuse to invade Ukraine is totaly insane. It's just as crasy as using the denazification of Ukraine as an excuse. So keep on arguing if there was or wasn't any promises but this is no excuse to start a war.
Well I mean none of these countries were invaded or couped to coerce them into joining nato. If so many communist dictatorships suddenly become democracies and through self determination decides to join nato, then Russia must be offering a less favourable deal, which they absolutely are. The Warsaw pact was never about ideology, it was about warm water ports and a big buffer zone against the west. Just like the Russian empire the soviet Union replaced, no country's culture, language or independence came above Russias need for more distance between its borders and its industrial heartland
You speak like a brit.
the funny thing is ALL of those NATO applications are voluntary. if russia posed no threat to them, why do they run towards the west?
NATO is a necessity, and Chechnya, Georgia, and now Ukraine proved exactly that necessity.
@@bradleymalcolm7025 self determinism is not a word russtards recognize. defense of peace and sovereignty is through superior firepower is the only language these orcs, time immemorial, understand.
@@wiryantirta Being sovereign next to a superpower is a no. You do remember what happened to Cuba when Fidel thought his country is sovereign, western troll, since we are calling names?
Why are we all discussing whether the Ukrainians can be allowed to decide on their own, who they want to be closer to? Are they not entitled to their own free decisions?
A short man who has a nice house in Gelendzhik thinks they do not.
Exactly. Putin's dilemma with Ukraine is marry me or I kill you. And the saddest part is that Russia doesn't need anything from Ukraine(neither Crimea nor Donbas). And even less this war ...
So yeah it's a schoolyard buddy who bullies a specific kid for money(who doesn't have it).
Following that logic, I could make my house my own country. I'm sure my government would allow that.
After watching this video? No. Ukraine needs to remain neutral. Build a true democratic country. Given the internal mess of Ukraine, difficult. US has been meddling for a long time. Zelenskyy is doing more harm than good.
The bottom line is whether countries are able to determine for themselves their strategic, political and economic alliances. If not they are not independence countries, but puppet states.
Ukraine itself was fully self sustaining. The system was very pretty, but it was better then what Putin had for it and they declared independence themselves
true , thats why russia acted for its own self interest , to keep USA away . your statement can be said for russia to
, But no one is threatening Russia. FOR YEARS, the US and EU did everything to integrate Russia into the western economic system. Accession to the G7, admission in the WTO, and joint military exercises between NATO and Russia, Europe became totally dependent on Russian gas imports. What is really happening is that the Russian govt wants to maintain an obsolete centralized autocratic structure that runs the country like a mafia, serving elites in the govt and keeping the regions begging for handouts from Moscow, despite having massive oil and gas revenues. The russian govt sees the EU style of government with accountability and sharing of power as a severe threat to their corrupt business.
Lithuania Estonia Poland, Latvia, Romania are part of nato but they never felt being puppet,, they are secured because there's organization they could rely when an evil want to terrorize them
Are you saying that right now, Ukraine is in the process of showing NATO that they're able?
What about the Budapest Memorandum? Not worth the paper its WRITTEN ON?
There's always a lot of talk. The contract is in the written agreement. The rule of law is the basis of civilized world.
Nato is an agreement. Not an empire. This whole context is useless. Any nation has the right to defence.
You are falling into russias trap by even having this debate.
Too many people still treat Russia like a special need baby. Russia does not own Eastern Europe.
The US uses NATO as a means to implement military pressure to countries they consider competitors.
Correction: The map shows Ireland as part of NATO. Ireland is a neutral country like Finland and Sweden and Switzerland.
Switzerland is no longer neutral.
Many people here are dumb. They can't understand "military" neutrality.
@F A "One day this COULD be accurate?" That's not really what I expect (or what any of us should accept) from an established and respected news source. Honestly.
Zelensky feels like world boss.. he ask everyone to follow his order...
Not anymore coming soon !
First off, I don't like how this argument treats Eastern Europe like a non-entity. The total population of Eastern Europe, by which I mean the two rows of European nations bordering the former Soviet Union and current day Russia, is just as large as Russia's. They aren't any less important. Who are Russia and the US to make those permanent decisions for them? Second, this isn't really about NATO expansion anyway, that's just a distraction. Nothing that happens in Ukraine will change NATO being on Russia's border in the Baltics, or the US being right on top of Russia in the Bering Strait. This is about the Ukrainian people voting out a corrupt pro-Russian government, and Putin knowing that once Ukraine joins either the EU or NATO, they'll no longer being able to twist Ukraine's arm and put a pro-Russian government in place. Invading and conquering is the only way that can happen. And third, it would be easy to sidestep the non-written, unofficial NATO agreement anyway. Eastern Europe could just form a second layer defensive alliance and invite Ukraine to that. Then if Russia invades Ukraine, the rest of Eastern Europe can help and attack from within their borders. If Russia crosses those borders, they activate the rest of NATO. If they don't, they're at a huge disadvantage and will lose, because they'll never be able to get near parts of western Ukraine. So all this NATO expansion talk is just to confuse people, and try to turn it back into Russia vs the US, and pretend like what Eastern Europe wants doesn't matter.
Yep, every eastern European and especially Ukrainians that I've talked to always stated that life under leaders like Putin was brutal and oppressive.
People have to remember that most of Eastern Europe was constantly conquered and subjugated to a point where there was hardly a time these nations remained independent, but they were some of the fiercest fighters to achieve their independence.
Your argument contains the fact that the US and Russia make decisions for Eastern Europe. What does it mean then to say that they "aren't any less important"? If we follow your line of thought here, they should be "important", but they are not. So we may ask, if you insist on this notion of importance--why should they be "important" and why are they not? NATO and the EU are not democracies--such that the population size of Eastern Europe has no bearing on politics. The region is not a united political entity, so it is not a military threat to America, the EU, or Russia. So, geopolitically, Eastern Europe has formed a buffer between Europe and Russia. Demanding otherwise is like asking why Poland is a poor country and not a rich one--or rather like demanding that Poland be wealthier than Britain because it ought to be. We might agree that this should be the case, but it is not. So what exactly are you talking about? It sounds like Eastern European countries need NATO, need America and the EU, because they provide military support--this is who you are appealing to when you say that these nations ought to be important: important enough to America and the EU to protect against Russia. Thus it is inherent in your own argument that these countries are not "important"--if they were, they would be autonomously deterring the EU, America, and Russia, and your point would be moot as they would need no help "deciding" how their geopolitical situation should be. It would be nice, for example, for Iraq to have decided that America ought not to have successfully invaded it--but alas, we can't just have what we want.
@@laserprawn Eastern Europe has always been stuck between great powers, Russia was just the latest even after the fall of the Soviet Union.
Literally every former Warsaw Pact member choose to be in NATO, they were not forced.
@@peterbarca8783 Literally every ex-Warsaw Pact country has a small military budget because their security is subsidized by America--why would you need to force them to join?
Forgive me but i don't see how the US has "made any decisions for" Eastern European peoples. NATO membership is something that is requested, applied for, and democratically ratified by a nation.
That's not comparable to Russia's treatment of the nations of Eastern Europe.
You seem to need to inform yourself of the historical facts much more carefully
This video totally misses the national security implications of a hostile military alliance becoming able to place intermediate defensive missiles that can be converted quite rapidly into offensive missiles within minutes from your capital, and the effects of one of your strategic naval bases being converted into a base of your adversary. Those are the real implications of this step of NATO expansion, not the promises as such, although they were intended to avoid such effects. Please do better reporting.
Facts. Considering Russia lost the Cold War, which resulted in a large amount of lost land, power, and prestige for Russia, there is little reason for NATO to move Eastwards. Even more so, considering Ukraine was owned by Russia for a couple hundred years at this point. No way Russia is going to let NATO casually consider expanding into Ukraine. Prior to the west discussing NATO with Ukraine, Russia made no hostile moves towards Ukraine since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Lastly, what non-militaristic reason does the west have for wanting Ukraine to join NATO? The answer is none. Sure the potential of becoming economically closer to Ukraine is on the table, but NATO is not needed for that to happen, as NATO at its heart is a military alliance, with its initial purpose being to contain Soviet (aka communist) expansion. Ukraine has no value to the west, but absolute value to Russia. Would be like if the U.S. collapsed, and most of the country remained in the East, but the western states broke up, and China began talking about having California join in a military alliance with it. Are we really saying we, the U.S.A. would just let that happen? I don't believe we would, so why are we surprised that Russia won't let it happen?
Repeat your question back to yourself in your mind slowly and carefully and then ask yourself honestly if a nuclear superpower would attack another nuclear superpower unprovoked? Dumbest thing I’ve heard.
Surely it would make a little more sense that Eastern Euro countries want to move away from the Russian orbit due to Russia’s propensity to invade. But no, I’m sure your “America wants to launch missiles at Russia” hypothesis stands to much better reason.
Is this a joke? Do you think it is the 1900s buddy ?
The problem is that the Ukrainians were not being prepared for the attack of Russians, but for the barbecue on May 9, "And the population rejoiced and applauded the invitation to the barbecue, not knowing that they and their children would be the meat for the barbecue."
I'm from Romania and I can 100% confirm that at least as far as we're concerned WE WANTED to join NATO! We ran away from russian influence like it was the plague (even to this day we actually call it "the red plague"). I imagine this was the case for all former Warsaw Pact countries. russian influence is seen to bring only poverty and misery!
Regarding justification to attack Ukraine over wanting to join, even IF it were true that NATO gave assurances (I ask myself if this was the case: WHY wasn't anything written down?! Did they just ran out of paper?...), Ukraine gave no such assurance, so russia should have attacked NATO, not poor Ukraine...
so if cuba is wiiling to have russian hyper sonic missile system will usa allow it?
@@jacky-ob4nd You're kind of proving my point, even at the hight of the cuban missle crisis, the US didn't invade Cuba, they were at odds with the ussr because they know that's were the real problem was. Now putler is a bully picking on who he can...
@@alexandruvaduva6519 They sorta tried with the bay of pigs
Romania?LOL!red plug?look at your country!what a clown!
@@jacky-ob4nd Missiles have nothing to do with it and you talk as if Russia has no border with a NATO country! You need to check your geography. This war has meant Finland will be yet another NATO country on Russia's border. Even the USA has two maritime borders with Russia
The issue is that this discussion basically erases the will of the peoples of Poland, the Baltic nations, and the rest of Eastern Europe. As if they are condemned to be perpetually subjugated to their Moscow masters. These countries saw a way out and ran for the EU- NATO hills to claim protection from their aggressive paranoid oppressor.
No pro-Russia guy here, but you mentioned paranoia and history shows Russia has alot of room to be paranoid. Since the 1200's Russia has been invaded every single century, from Sweden, Polish-Lithuania, France, Germany, Japan. That is 1 in every 4 generations, sometimes 3, of Russians who have lived through invasions. NATO was designed specifically to be against Russia so in many ways, that "paranoia" is very, very real.
@KP Podcast I take your point. But why would the US push so hard for years to get Russia to be successful and integrated in the western economic system.? Why push to admit it in the G7, in the WTO, why did Europe buy their gas and oil if they dislike them so much? Why coordinate joint exercises and agreements between NATO and Russia? If they don’t like Russia that was a very strange way to demonstrate it, by providing them with hundreds of billions of USD every year in revenue for 3 decades….
@@kppodcast5698 Your talking about a past that doesn't exist anymore. I don't know of a single country that wants to invade Russia except China ,if it could .
@@mrparts They tried to change Russia into good neighbour and partner. Something impossible to do. Putin has always been the same pure evil. West was just too naive and did not want to see it.
@@Blanka1100
Putin and the oligarchs are much like the Tsars and their aristocracies.
NATO did in my opinion not want to expand. Instead the countries which joined NATO caused NATO's expansion.
I might be naive, but hasn't any country the right to join organisations?
Why weren't the Budapest papers mentioned in this video? In this paper the Ukraine's borders where guarantied not only by the US, Britain, and France, but also by Russia.
The Ukraine surrendered her nuclear weapons to Russia, in return for that guaranty. I think that Russia (i.e. Putin) bent the rules,
How do you know they really wanted to join without referendums on the matter of NATO? there was only one referendum in 1998 in Hungary. Why didnt they conduct referendums back then in all of eastern europe?
No, there was no treaty or agreement. You can skip the vid now if you like.
If I promise something to a guy, and the guy dies, how can I still be held accountable? The USSR does not exist anymore.
Also: If those countries joined NATO by their own choice, why is it NATOs fault that they wanted to do so?
Also also: Isn't it 30 years too late to still be thinking in East vs. West?
If you bank is taken over do you still have to repay your mortgage..........lol. Former USSR is now many countries, so yes you do.
@@novak7970 Most countries which joined Nato were under USSR influence and not part of USSR, so no htey dont have to. They wer simply under the influence, arguably forcibly, of a superpower, and when given independence and free will, chose the other side as they saw the benfits of joining the west and NATO. They joined NATO because they wer afraid of what a rearmed Russian state would possibly force them and subdue them into doing, such as with Ukraine now.
That obligation never existed in the first place. A verbal agreement between two presidents is not legally binding for their respective States, much less for NATO and the breakaway States of the former Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact.
If the dead guy has a muscle guy brother, is it wise for you to not deliver your promise? No doubt you might feel the muscle guy is not really a muscle guy. But, you could be wrong. What then?
@@fungames24 What then? Then maybe the neighbors get together and kick the muscle guy out of the neighborhood.
I can already hear muscle guy crying, “I bullied people so they wouldn’t kick me out”.
From an objective point of view the question that always struck me was, "Why all those former Soviet countries want to join NATO and EU?" The answer is now extremely obvious!
Just looking at how Putin treats people who opposes his war is enough.
so glad we Slovakia joined in 2004. Had that not happened I'd be shitting my pants down here in my country.
@@falcon55551 Slovakia looks like a great country to visit!
James Baker did in FEB 1990, stenograms are a living proof. Not an inch eastwards.
Besides: 🇺🇦🇺🇦 Ukraine's Independence declaration of Aug 1991 included non-aligned status and US did not recognize it's Independence until that declaration was put on nation-wide referendum in Dec 1991. (4 months!!! of waiting because oral promise before Moscow had to be approved by a majority of Ukraine's🇺🇦🇺🇦 population in the WRITTEN form).
Be smart, Google it and don't let Media brainwash and fool you.🙄
@@falcon55551 My late grandma cried with a tears of joy when Poland joined Nato in 1999. She knew Russia better than people in Western Europe ever will.
Imagine that Russia and South America will unite in a defense alliance, Brazil, Argentina, Cuba, Mexico and other countries...what will the US say?
Nobody cares about russian whataboutism. Nato expansion is an excuse for Putin to annex independent country of Ukraine and that is all you should care and worry about. Putin needs excuses to justify his crimes.
They will spread misinformation saying those countries have governments leaning toward communism and are threat to the world and other lies. Then they will attack Mexico first to liberate their people and gift them democracy.
Go ahead - it's their sovereign right!
They've already done that: it's called Cuban Missile crisis
@@somerandomboibackup6086 And Russia was sent back home by Kennedy, and Kruschev was sacked!
Obviously the so-called no east extension did mean to only Germany, that is NATO troops would not be deployed to east Germany, because the other countries were not even in the scope.
Again, a conversation about the expansion of NATO that completely ignores the opinions of any of the countries involved. A german news company talking to Americans about why Estonia joined NATO and who's interests that served. Here's a novel idea, how about you talk to Estonians?
Estonians have no claim to independence from the USSR nor the other Baltic states. It is clear the Western would cherry picks who gets independence status.
Typical American answer: If it favors me, democracy! if not, the regime must be toppled hahahaha
...wo. Unintelligible gibberish, buddy. Did NATO pledge not to go East, or did it not?
the opinion of those countries didn't matter. when Euromaidan happened, the USA already determined that the Ukranian president should be ousted and even named the next president to office. all of this was determined before the Ukranian electorate hit the ballot box. things can be arranged.
the USA was also aware that the EU was against this. the US official's comment was "f&*% the EU".
Because the Estonians voted on the matter. Ask an Estonian then; their opinions matter but I have a feeling it will be NATO favored these days.. historical polling suggests that. This is a German news channel, no surprise its them interviewing people. ?
Putin needs to ask himself why so many ex Waswaw pact countries want to join NATO and EU.
He' a narcissist. That would be impossible for him.
He asked for Russia adhesion too in 2000. He got rejected you can find the reason with Biden interview 97
@@michaelgl8516 DID AZOV TELL YA THAT? OR THE PINKOS?
@@michaelgl8516 ISRAEL NEEDS TO FUND ITS OWN HOLY WAR
Putin needs to ask himself why he wanted NATO to expand eastward right into Russia 2000ish, Bill Clinton saying he had no objection. Putin can't have been very threatened back then about all the "not an inch to the east" stuff....
You can suggest all you want.. but the best source is those present in the talks.. Gorbachev and Burbulis.. which could debunk or confirm the specifics.. Gorbachev denied the existance of such agreement before, but we can’t ask anymore b/c they both died in 2022. What is certain however is that Russia signed the 1991 Belovezha accords respecting Ukraine’s sovereignty which included respecting its borders and political independence. As such Ukraine as any other free nation is free to align themselves with whatever international partnership they wish whether it is defensive or economic. Even Russia itself has opted for NATO membership. So the whole but but NATO narrative is false.. and by no means an excuse for waging war
You missed the fact that Russia agreed on Poland joining NATO!
Poles did agree to join Nato and they did not have to ask Russia for its permission
The problem with glasses guy is that Gorbachev even says that the Soviets didn't take it as "no more expansion."
The other problem is, Kohl probably thought Russia was going to be a democracy.
With Russia become more like Mad Max at the time, no wonder the small Eastern European states wanted NATO protection.
Putin is just afraid of democracy.
Yes Gorbachev himself has said that all of the promises were relating to East Germany and West Germany and their reunification, and he also had said that NATO has fulfilled their actual promised obligations in that respect.
The problem with Gorbachev's words is that he absolutely hates Putin and he'll say whatever he needs to say to try and discredit the Russian government's narrative. His statements are not reliable. Just like Putin's narrative is not reliable... and the coverage by the West is not reliable either.
“The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context. Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled."
Here is a quote for those interested. It's by Gorbachev.
Glassy Guy doesnt understanding change of time and MANY other things!
It doesn't matter. NATO didn't give weapons to North Korea, constantly try to claim other's territory, invade Crimea, or invade Ukraine.
Whatever small issues may nuissance one or the other, the fact that Russia invaded a country and bombed civilian residences, schools, hospitals... is unacceptable. Unless someone shows confirmed evidence that the majority of Ukraine was involved in human trafficing this is unjustifiable.
It doesn't matter. NATO didn't give weapons to North Korea, constantly try to claim other's territory, invade Crimea, or invade Ukraine.
Whatever small issues may nuissance one or the other, the fact that Russia invaded a country and bombed civilian residences, schools, hospitals... is unacceptable. Unless someone shows confirmed evidence that the majority of Ukraine was involved in human trafficing this is unjustifiable.
...bruh what about the middle east?
@@ImNoHeroSCA "middle east?"....bruh our bad..you got us there
Double standard at its best. Did Iraq have WMD? Was Bin Laden in Afghanistan?
So did all the European powers in the name of colonialism and uncle sam did the same in the rest of the world. The rest of the lives(other than European) matter too.
Vietnam 1950s flashback...
Russia did not remain peaceful so is it surprising that former Warsaw pact countries sought safety in numbers?
This was left out of this documentary.
Russia invaded Chechnya and Georgia after this agreement was made. If Russia had been peaceful would there have been a need for these countries to join.
If NATO was smart they would admit Moldova and prevent the Russians from invading there.
If Russia wasn't ok with the expansion eastwards. Why was it on the table that Russia might join NATO?
The Kremlin should ask itself why all its neighbors are seeking NATO membership. The fundamental problem is that Russia does not respect its neighbors or their rights as sovereign states.
Oh you mean like the other numerous countries that have waged war on Russia over the centuries? Stop killing Russian men and trying to take all the Russian women and then trying to live off of their land rent free and you're not going to have to worry about "defending" yourself.
Exactly Crazylord!
@@LubaB Education prevents stupidity!
Says who? Your media that is brainwashing you? Oh yeah they are all joining NATO because they are so scared of "dictator Putin". Funny then that they all joined NATO long before Putin even became President. People are so braindead it´s not even funny anymore
@@ilovecamels4889 sez you
Well, Russia signed security guarantees for Ukraine in exchange for Ukrainian nuclear disarmament after the collapse of the USSR. Obviously those "guarantees" werent kept were they?
So, who is the first breaker?
After Ukrainian President literaly stated that the want to get the weapons back.
Those Guarantees are moot since Ukraine embraced NATO which is many inches to the east of Germany... Russia has a legitimate beef with NATO post Cold War.
Exactly!
how many promises did russia keep?
NATO and alliance would not be required I guess if you don't have a neighbour like Russia or China. There is no fair play for smaller countries in todays world.
You forgot something really important - there was a chance for Russia to join NATO in the future. But Russia does not want to be just a member of military alliance - that's not Russia's ambition. Russia wants to rule other countries. And Russia already made serious war crimes long time ago, when Putin just came to power as a prime minister - anybody remember the war in Chechnya? The West ignored that. And later the West ignored Russia's agression on Georgia. And later almost ignored the annexation of Crimea. There was even no serious sanctions for shooting down a passenger plane!
The war in Ukraine could never happen if only western politicians on time reacted strongly to Putin's previous crimes.
This whole discussion starts with the false pretense that the current leadership in modern Russia has the same reasons to be concerned about NATO's growth as the original Soviet leadership in 1990.
People are trying to conflate two interpretations of what a country's "security interests" means. The one definition that most people are wrongly attributing to Putin is that Putin is concerned that expanding NATO would put Russia in direct existential danger since NATO might grow so powerful and so close to Russia that they might decide to move nuclear missiles up to Russia's border and then invade Russia. You often hear the concern expressed in false analogies like "how would the US like it if Mexico joined alliances with Russia?" As an aside the actual answer to this is, fine as long as Russia didn't build military bases on the Rio Grande and station nuclear missiles there. And since Ukraine was neither in an actual alliance with Europe and NATO much less having any NATO military presence on Russia's border in Ukraine then this analogy is completely wrong. Likewise it would be insane if Mexico wanted to be allied with Russia but Russia refused and the US still decided to invade and decimate Mexico only because they didn't promise to never join Russia in any alliance.
Putin knows there is a zero percent chance that NATO would ever just invade Russia unprovoked for zero reason other than to conquer Russia. Especially with Russia's stockpile of nuclear missiles. No, when Putin talks about "security interests" he means European influence taking away Russia's unfettered freedom to directly meddle, influence and control the politics and economies of the old Soviet states. It's no coincidence that Russia invaded Ukraine multiple times a handful of years after both Ukraine and Moldova kept electing pro-European Presidents and parliaments after defeating Putin's pro-Russian candidates. Other than Russian puppet Lukashenko's Belarus he saw that NATO or not these remaining last former Soviet states were moving toward Europe and that means no future hope of milking them and getting a cut from these faux democratic republics really run by pro-Russian oligarchs giving Putin a cut of the action. NATO was just the convenient excuse dug up from the old Soviet concerns from the 1980s cold war era.
Well stated! 🙋🏼
Very good points! "...when Putin talks about "security interests" he means European influence taking away Russia's enfettered freedom to directly meddle, influence and control the politics and economies of the old Soviet states."
@@francislim938 You completely missed the entire point of my comment.
Yes, it is just an excuse. Russian leaders/politic has been suppressing/cancelling Ukrainian identity throughout history, long before NATO even existed. This evil mindset has been there all along
@@francislim938 Again missed the entire point of my comment. Putin doesn't care about military alliances as far as weapons systems go or any threat militarily to Russia. They have nukes and know their sovereignty would never be threatened. It has everything to do with NATO blocking Putin from controlling, benefiting and profiting from former Soviet states.
Ukraine is a sovereign democratic country and can make its own decisions - THE END
Unfortunately, bloody tyrant from Moskow Kremlin and his bloody government doesn't think like you... -_-
And they’ll get nuked. THE END. Thanks for that dumb non-contribution to this discussion.
Guess yo missed there was a coup in 2013 orquestraded by the ones the try to solve the world and impose a democracy like in Afghanistan , and they helped to dethrone his democratic president back then to put in charge a puppet they could handle.
The playbook is always the same, they are experts on that matter.
Is Mexico a "sovereign democratic country"? Was Cuba a "sovereign democratic country"? Western exceptionalism knows no limits.
@@ericjsmoczynski4374 You know about dumb better than anyone...
yeah, ukraine wasnt in nato and this is what happened
so you cant blame countries if they want to join nato
NATO's existence was being questioned more and more since it had essentially become pointless. But Putin couldn't see that. So he acted. Not only have more countries wanted to join. There is a renewed reason for the alliance and cohesion within most NATO members. Putin ended up being his own worst enemy. Or maybe it was never about NATO.
NATO is not and has never been pointless
Putin himself in 2000's was ok with NATO expansion. He was even asked about Ukraine's desire to join NATO. He said that Ukraine is an independent country and is free to do whatever it wants.
Putin couldn't live with our ignorant drunkard President's administration's attitude towards and treatment of the Russian Federation.
Condoleeza Rice was the National Security Advisor appointed by shrub. She knew Russian and grew her career on the Cold War confrontation. She did know how weak economically the Russian Federation was relatively to the U. S. A. and acted accordingly putting it "in its place."
In international relations, attitude matters. Knowing far too much can be detrimental. Of course, if one can filter that out before one expresses it, it's the "moral equivalent of not knowing" and tolerating. One eye wide shut can be a very valuable foreign policy.
The U. S. A. has the original scene of slavery. Any African-ancestry-origin person rising to power are either exceptionally realistic, competent [and often abrasive because reality can bruise the egos of anachronistic people such as Putin] or capable of "code switching" such as Barack Obama.
It's slavery by our southern plantation owners which had contributed to this current mess.
It wouldn't have been a problem if the shrub were a hedge but alas ! We have White incompetent folks being figurehead jobs.
@@schlechtgut8349 do you have any video link? hard to believe Putin ever said that.
@@schlechtgut8349 NATO had not killed Gaddafi and invaded Afghanistan and also NATO had not admitted a dozen eastern european countries yet which happened in 1999 and 2004. These things started breaking the trust and respect between Russia and NATO.
A despot will use whatever excuse seems legitimate to make their argument seem sound. What can you do, a warmonger's gonna war. These are the EXACT same tactics as in Georgia, Putin just decided not to stop this time.
But Georgia is so much smaller than Ukraine. I can understand Putin not wanting to let go of such a sizeable prize, not to mention the rich farmlands & minerals. It was literally the best part of Russia.
James Baker did in FEB 1990, stenograms are a living proof. Not an inch eastwards.
Besides: 🇺🇦🇺🇦 Ukraine's Independence declaration of Aug 1991 included non-aligned status and US did not recognize it's Independence until that declaration was put on nation-wide referendum in Dec 1991. (4 months!!! of waiting because oral promise before Moscow had to be approved by a majority of Ukraine's🇺🇦🇺🇦 population in the WRITTEN form).
Be smart, Google it and don't let Media brainwash and fool you.🙄🙄
Your post is a psychological projection. Ukraine and the US/NATO have been the hostile actors if not since 1990, absolutely since 2014.
@@ericjsmoczynski4374 Troll!
@@michaelgl8516 Another psychological projection. The troll is you. Come back when you know a single relevant fact about Russia, politics, or history.
Not just one or two, but 14 former Russian allied countries have already left Russian influence in the last two decades.
Estonia (2004)
Latvia (2004)
Lithuania (2004)
Albania (2009)
Bulgaria (2004)
Croatia (2009)
Czech Republic (1999)
Hungary (1999)
Montenegro (2017)
North Macedonia (2020)
Poland (1999)
Romania (2004)
Slovakia (2004)
Slovenia (2004)
Not one of them invaded by NATO. They sought membership and complied with strict requirement. "If all your friends are leaving you, then the problem must be YOU". These eastern countries have decided on what they want to do with their lives. Russia can always try to win them back, why not, but not by threatening and shooting them dead. That's a crime.
Correct
They are all running to join the EU and NATO because of Brussels money it's more economic than defence.
Yeah sure debt trapping countries into joining nato isn't invasive at all
Absolutely, Russia also have signed a document (can't recall the name) agreeing that any country in Europe have the right to decide how to defend itself, including joining alliances.
But it USA, who provoked ukraine against Russia, and making chemical weapon with the aid of USA at ukraine Russia border.
NATO only promised not to expand into east Germany once it became independent. Taken completely out of context.
Russia is not Eastern Europe's master to demand anything. We owe Russia nothing.
Did - So far we know - the answer is - no.
There is no written declaration so far we know.
Ukraine gave up their nuclear missiles on agreement with Russia for non aggression. So Russia can't bleat about old agreements - that are fictitional anyway!
Russia agreed fornon aggresion...but ukraine did not respect the MINSK AGRREMENT and was killing russian speaking people in the donbass area for 8 years...that is why the agreement did not stand in place anymore.
@@renemolina2645 Hahaha... you fell for the Russian KGB lies. That's in their playbook. It's the same lie they used to invade Georgia. There are so many Russians in Ukraine because Russia killed of a quarter of the Ukrainian population and sent Russians to settle on the dead Ukrainian's land.
Supposedly all of the nuclear missiles that Ukraine gave up. Belonged to Russia before Ukraine left Russia. So Ukraine didn’t have access to the codes to use the Nukes. So it made sense for them to give them back.
There was no written agreement on nato expansion. It was only talk
Those were Russian missiles Ukraine didn't have access to anyways. Just like Turkey can't wake up and nuke it's neighbors tomorrow because the US missiles are controlled by the US President. It was mostly a formality. Ukraine didn't have the launch codes so they either agree to return them or Russia sends in a military force to recuperate them.
Cuba at one point wanted Russia to build its military base and guess what US said? They said we will declare war if Russia come.
it wasn’t a base, you dum b mook. They wanted to build launch pads for ballistic nuclear missiles. BIG difference. read a book
This comment makes little sense. The issue in Cuba was related to the siting of missiles by the USSR at the height of the cold war, not to the building of an army base by Russia.
As was their right to say, Russia could’ve said the same when Eastern European countries joined NATO but they didn’t, because they couldn’t back it up with a real army (still can’t apparently)
@@tw0million god bless your family in Ukraine and in US
Putin didn't make a fuss about it when baltics join the NATO. Plus NATO already rejected Georgia (then Russia invaded) and Ukraine, furthermore there was zero chance for them to accept Ukraine in any foreseeble future. Germany, Hungary, possibly France and Italy would have vetoed that anyway.
Clearly, Putin used NATO "expansion" as an excuse/pretext to violate Ukrainian sovereignty.
such an allegedly important agreement was not recorded in writing? 😂😂😂
You have diplomats talk to one another to eventually create a finalized agreement. The finalized agreement said zilch about NATO expansion. Yes, finalized agreements hold far more weight than "discussions." Shifrinson's case is very weak, IMO. Btw, in terms of Russia, how about Russia's agreement at Budapest where they agreed to not invade Ukraine if Ukraine gave up their nukes?
Whataboutism.
@@icecp4279 Not quite. It would be whataboutism, if, say, the nato-not-expanding-east bit was in a treaty that was then broken. Treatys are the final, binding product of diplomacy. They are the house, as built. What diplomats and politicians say and discuss before, are plans, preliminary blueprints and proposals.
You can't exactly get mad over a guest bathroom not being right next to te front door in your house, pointing at one of several preliminary sketches and designs, because those are not the final house.
@@lutzderlurch7877 however that treaty was made with the USSR and if Russia wanted to renew that same agreement then they would have to have diplomatic talks which they never did therefore that no longer applied
Shifrinson is shiffty.
Memorandum are also binding. Go to National Security Archives, look up Cannon. The documents are there,and disrespecting a world leader by a network of bullies (NATO), doesn't make Putin evil. On contrary, NATO is the disengenuine, corrupt bully it has proven to be.
1. NATO 'assurances' were made to USSR + Warsaw Pact, not Russia. The new member states were part of either WP or even USSR, so clearly they didn't feel bound to any 'deal'. USSR ≠ Russia.
2. What about Russia's own role? Chechnya, Georgia, Moldova, all substantiated existing concerns in former WP/USSR countries, and they sought security in NATO.
Also, don't forget that Putin himself talked to Clinton about the possibility of Russia joining NATO in the early 2000s. He clearly didn't feel bound by any 'promise'.
1. The assurances weren't formalized.
2. The assurances weren't made to the Russian Federation, They were made to the Soviet Union. It's pretty much a given if a country has a wholesale regime change any prior agreements may be null and void. Like if Canada turned to a Communist dictatorship. Do you seriously think all US treaties with Canada would simply remain? Of course not.
3. The states that joined NATO ASKED to join, they weren't forced to join.
they should have done referendums before joining to ask the people directly If they want to be a NATO member.
@@tasospanagiotou7823 Did USSR ask Eastern Euroeans if they want to be Warsaw pact members. No.
@@Blanka1100 To a degree u might be right. Still, some eastern european countries were part of the tsarist Russia( maybe in a shady way I dont know that) and were lost in the Treaty of Brest Litovsk. Lenin was forced to give them away to Germany in order to be able to focus on the fighting which was taking place inside his own country. In the case of Czechoslovakia, the communist party emerged to the largest party at 1946. In other cases like Poland and Romania it was completely unjustified why they turned suddenly ¨socialist¨ after 1945.
If counties can unilaterally pull out signed agreements, it is absurd to assign value to verbal agreements much less conversations retracted during negotiation. An agreement lasts so long as both part have the power of enforcement.
Iran will be surprised by such interpretation. Trump decided to quit Iran deal and just like that - it's gone
@@mityasf yeah and biden gives iran 5 billion dollars for humanitarian use never worrying about the fact iran said they will use the money in irans best intrests. will be really fun to see where the hamas us weapons came from afghanistan or ukraine, either way it futher solidifys the fact that Biden is a monumental failure and thats no surprise to any one he has always been a failure.
Funny to see most commentators here going to great lengths to defend that Bush Sr., James Baker, Gencher and others did not make a no inch pledge, or that the US and its European vassals were not obliged to fulfill its commitment.
It is also interesting how the human species always behaves like a herd and is not ashamed to take the side of the criminal, often untalented, herd leaders. In this case, the presidents of the largest rogue state in the world.