Tag: russia

The United States Always Knew NATO Expansion Would Lead to War

The present severed from the past is easily misunderstood. In discussions of the Russia-Ukraine war, not enough is made of the historical fact that, at the end of the Cold War, the newly independent Ukraine promised not to join NATO, and NATO promised not to expand to Ukraine.

Not enough is made of the fact that Article IX of the 1990 Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine, “External and Internal Security,” says that Ukraine “solemnly declares its intention of becoming a permanently neutral state that does not participate in military blocs…” That promise was later enshrined in Ukraine’s constitution, which committed Ukraine to neutrality and prohibited it from joining any military alliance; that included NATO.

Nor is enough made of the fact that in 1990 and 1991, the George H.W. Bush administration gave assurances to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev—assurances that arguably reached the level of a deal—that NATO would not expand east of Germany, including to Ukraine.

But even less is made of what the Bill Clinton administration later promised Russian President Boris Yeltsin, nor what the United States already knew at the time of where plans of NATO expansion to Ukraine would lead.

Recently declassified documents clearly show that, between 1993 and 2000, the U.S. already knew that a cornered Boris Yeltsin was distraught about NATO expansion and about the West’s broken promise, that expansion to Ukraine was a red line, and that if Russia ever enforced that red line, the U.S. would respond forcefully.

Though the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland were invited to begin accession talks in 1997 and joined NATO in 1999, a secret October 1994 policy paper, written by National Security Advisor Anthony Lake and entitled “Moving Toward NATO Expansion,” makes it clear that the decision to expand NATO had already been made by that time. The paper explicitly keeps “the membership door open for Ukraine.”

Interestingly, though Russia is always publicly painted as a predatorial nation with imperial ambitions, a confidential 1993 cable states that most Eastern European states seek NATO membership “not [because they] feel militarily threatened by Russia” but because they believe “that NATO membership can help stave off the return of authoritarian forces” in their own countries. Though the cable makes the exception that Ukraine and the Baltic states may feel threatened by Russia.

By September 1994, Clinton had explicitly told Yeltsin that NATO would expand. While visiting Yeltsin in the hospital on December 16, 1994, Vice President Al Gore clarifies that “What Clinton told you in September was that eventually NATO will expand.”

But Gore promised Yeltsin that “the process will be gradual and open and we will consult carefully with you.” He added, “The process will be conducted in parallel with a deepening of the U.S.-Russia partnership and your partnership with NATO.”

Though less than a week later, a secret NSC memorandum clarifies that Russia will not be given “a veto or right of prior consultation over NATO decisions,” this promise of a deepening “institutionalized relationship between NATO and Russia—possibly in the form of a Treaty (“alliance with the Alliance”) or Charter” that will be established in parallel with NATO expansion is repeatedly mentioned. A secret memorandum written by Anthony Lake to Clinton on July 17, 1995 identifies “plans to develop a formalized NATO-Russia relationship in parallel with enlargement.” The spirit of this promise would be broken.

Importantly, it is evident that the Clinton administration was very aware of Russia’s opposition to NATO expansion and of their feeling of betrayal. Knowing that expansion is an impossible sell in Russia, Gore promised Yeltsin that expansion wouldn’t occur before 1996 because “[w]e understand you have parliamentary elections in mid-1995 and it would be hard for you if we moved forward then.”

Keep reading

Cutting Slovakia’s Gas Supplies May Well Backfire on Zelensky

On 1 January, Ukraine ceased to allow the transit of Russia gas to Europe. This ended almost uninterrupted supply of Russian piped gas to Europe, through sovereign Ukraine, since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Some in the west have celebrated this as victory over Russia. More likely, it will backfire on Ukraine’s NATO and European aspirations.

I have always considered the sale, purchase and supply of gas or any other commodity as an entirely commercial matter. In that regard, even while posted to the British embassy in Moscow, I dismissed suggestions that Russia was weaponizing its energy supplies.

There was only one occasion, in 2009, when Russian gas supplies to Europe were halted temporarily following a dispute over Ukraine’s non-payment of its accumulated debts. Russia worked hard to position itself as a reliable supplier of gas specifically because it sells gas domestically at heavily subsidized prices; gas exports therefore subsidize domestic consumption.

Having good relationships with European consumers was prioritised, as Alexander Medvedev, the Deputy Chairman of Gazprom remarked to UK Members of Parliament who visited the British Embassy in early 2017.

Ukraine’s recent decision to end a long-standing gas supply route to Europe seems just another minor twist in the long-running saga of energy disputes between both countries.

Keep reading

Pentagon Reluctantly Admits Russian ‘Incremental Gains’ In Eastern Ukraine

With just days to go before the United States gets a new Commander-in-Chief with Trump’s inauguration on Jan.20, the Pentagon has made a rare admission, acknowledging that Russian forces are basically dominating on the battlefield in Ukraine.

The Pentagon during its daily press briefing on Monday acknowledged Russian forces’ “incremental gains” in the Donbass. Below is from the question and answer transcript: 

Q:  And then a completely different topic — can you give us an update on the Ukrainian battlefield? Does Putin indeed have the upper hand right now?

PENTAGON PRESS SECRETARY MAJOR GENERAL PAT RYDER:  Well, what we’re seeing on the battlefield is that, especially in the East, Russia has made some incremental gains. Of course, it’s very tough fighting, as well as in the Kursk region as well. But when you talk about the upper hand, of course, tactically, again other than those incremental gains, what you’re seeing strategically is that again Russia has not achieved any of Its strategic objectives that it set for itself almost three years ago.

Keep reading

You Can’t Make Peace if No One is Talking

During the Cold War, American and Russian officials and diplomats were in constant communication. The Cuban missile crisis was resolved, not by isolating each other, but by communicating with each other. Contrary to American mythology, the Cuban missile crisis was resolved, not when Kennedy coldly stared down Khrushchev and forced him to back down, but when Kennedy’s passing messages to and communicating with Khrushchev led to a negotiated settlement. Attorney-General Robert Kennedy was in constant communication with Soviet ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin, as was President Kennedy with Nikita Khrushchev.

Following the Cuban missile crisis, Richard Sakwa says in his new book The Culture of the Second Cold War, a telephone hotline was maintained between Washington and Moscow. He says that, during the Cold War, these telephone hotlines became part of an elaborate system of diplomatic infrastructure. Back-channel diplomacy was a regular occurrence, and lines of communication were kept always open.

In the Second Cold War, centered around the war in Ukraine, this is no longer the case. Now talking to Russia’s president is considered treasonous because it legitimizes him, and diplomatic communication is considered collusion. Russian and American diplomats don’t talk. Secretary of State Antony Blinken has barely, if ever, officially spoken to Russia foreign minister Sergei Lavrov since the war began, and President Biden has not met with President Putin once. By the summer of 2024, Biden was still maintaining that “I have no good reason to talk to Putin right now,” thus introducing the entirely novel theory that diplomacy is an instrument to be used at times of peace but not at times of war.

And the gag order on talking to the enemy is not just at the level of diplomacy and government. There is a whole industry of choking funds to online and social media sites that publish information outside the official narrative. The CIA has even pressured Twitter (X) to suppress a “long lists of newspapers, tweets or YouTube videos guilty of ‘anti-Ukraine narratives.” Former NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has said that “NATO must remain prepared for both conventional and hybrid threats: From tanks to tweets.”

But the war against communication goes beyond suppression and censorship. All three parties to the war – Ukraine, Russia and the United States – have actively banned and silenced the media of the enemy.

Keep reading

Ukrainian Neutrality Is Still the Key to Peace

President-elect Trump said on January 9th that he is planning a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin about the war in Ukraine. He said “Putin wants to meet,” because “we have to get that war over with.” So what are the chances that a new administration in Washington can break the deadlock and finally bring peace to Ukraine?

During both of his election campaigns, Trump said he wanted to end the wars the U.S. was involved in. But in his first term, Trump himself exacerbated all the major crises he is now confronting. He escalated Obama’s military “pivot to Asia” against China, disregarded Obama’s fears that sending “lethal” aid to Ukraine would lead to war with Russia, withdrew from the JCPOA nuclear agreement with Iran, and encouraged Netanyahu’s ambitions to land-grab and massacre his way to a mythical “Greater Israel.”

However, of all these crises, the one that Trump keeps insisting he really wants to resolve is the war in Ukraine, which Russia launched and the U.S. and NATO then chose to prolong, leading to hundreds of thousands of Russian and Ukrainian casualties. The Western powers have until now been determined to fight this war of attrition to the last Ukrainian, in the vain hope that they can somehow eventually defeat and weaken Russia without triggering a nuclear war.

Trump rightly blames Biden for blocking the peace agreement negotiated between Russia and Ukraine in March and April 2022, and for the three more years of war that have resulted from that deadly and irresponsible decision.

While Russia should be condemned for its invasion, Trump and his three predecessors all helped to set the stage for war in Ukraine: Clinton launched NATO’s expansion into eastern Europe, against the advice of leading American diplomats; Bush promised Ukraine it could join NATO, ignoring even more urgent diplomatic warnings; and Obama supported the 2014 coup that plunged Ukraine into civil war.

Keep reading

The Walls Close In On Zelensky

In a meeting with allies in Germany this week, the embattled leader requested NATO troops on the ground in Ukraine.

“Our goal is to find as many instruments as possible to force Russia into peace. I believe that such deployment of partners’ contingents is one of the best instruments. Let’s be more practical in making it possible.”

Nothing about this proposal is “practical”. Even if Zelensky is speaking about peacekeeping troops as part of a settlement, which isn’t clear, it’s still a fundamentally crazy idea. Simply put, it would bring us to the brink of nuclear war.

Of course, this isn’t the first time Zelensky has suggested that NATO should send troops to fight and die in this war. But this latest instance is noteworthy because it comes just ahead of President Trump’s inauguration.

Given the circumstances, the move signals desperation.

Trump Stands Firm

President Trump has stood his ground on this issue thus far.

Just this week he acknowledged that NATO’s courtship of Ukraine was a major cause of the war, noting that if Ukraine were to join the Western military alliance, “then Russia has somebody right on their doorstep, and I could understand their feelings about that.”

Trump correctly blames Biden for promising Ukraine NATO membership and escalating the war.

In early December, Trump’s team conveyed the message that Ukraine would need to make major concessions to end the war. Those concessions will probably involve giving up land already captured by Russia, agreeing to a form of disarmament, and pledging to never join NATO.

This was an important shift, as it became clear even to the biggest hawks that Ukraine wasn’t going to recapture much, if any lost territory. And forget about Crimea.

Trump’s views on Ukraine are certainly unique in Washington D.C., But his base is ready for the war to end, and this issue was one of the keys to his landslide victory.

Meanwhile, it’s unclear whether Zelensky and the Ukrainian deep state would agree to such concessions. It’s also unclear whether they truly have a say in the matter, unless they’re prepared to go it alone against Russia.

But it’s also not clear if Russia would agree to such a deal. Putin could insist upon an end to sanctions on Russia, and a return of their frozen assets.

There’s also a chance that Russia won’t want to give Ukraine a break to re-arm itself. NATO has already pulled a fast one on Russia once, during the Minsk accords from 2014-2021. Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel has admitted this peace deal was in actuality a stall tactic to give Ukraine more time to build its military capabilities.

So President Putin may want to press the attack, eliminate Ukraine’s military capabilities, and gain more territory. Russia is advancing along almost the entire frontline. Its use of hypersonic missiles, artillery, drones, and guided glide bombs has devastated Ukrainian strongholds.

Ukrainian forces have been forced to fall back into far less favorable defensive positions, and this does not bode well for their outlook.

Keep reading

Zelensky Calls for NATO Troops in Ukraine at Last Ramstein Rally Before Trump Return

The Ukraine Defense Contact Group, which is essentially ‘NATO and Friends,’ convened at Ramstein Air Base on Thursday for its final meeting before Trump returns to the White House.

Zelensky used his speech to call for NATO to deploy troops to Ukraine, claiming it would “force Russia to peace,” when he and everyone else knows it would only serve to bring us to World War 3.

Glenn Diesen, a geopolitical analyst and professor at the University of South-Eastern Norway, noted that while Trump’s talk of wanting to pursue peace in Ukraine is a step forward, he’s in for a wake-up call if he expects Russia to accept a deal that doesn’t address Putin’s long list of security concerns for the region.

Keep reading

WINDS OF PEACE: Kremlin Welcomes Trump’s Readiness To Negotiate With Putin – Russians Have No Preconditions – Both Sides Are Now Preparing the Meeting

While the outgoing Joe Biden administration from hell is still trying to escalate the military conflict in the Ukraine, there’s already a lot of diplomatic work in progress, and a meeting between Donald J. Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin appears to be an upcoming reality – confirmed by both Trump and by the Kremlin.

The Russian Government says it welcomes Trump’s readiness to meet with Putin, a senior Moscow official confirmed yesterday (10).

Associated Press reported:

“Russia attaches no conditions to the possibility of face-to-face talks, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters during a conference call.

Trump said Thursday that ‘Putin wants to meet’ and that a meeting is being set up. He indicated that efforts to end the almost three-year war between Russia and Ukraine were behind the overtures for talks. ‘We have to get that war over with’, Trump said when referring to his possible meeting with Putin.”

Keep reading

Getting Russia Right 

Thirty years ago, March 1994, E. Wayne Merry, a career Foreign Service officer, filed a dissent cable that remained firmly under wraps until last month, when the estimable National Security Archive at George Washington University published it on its website. Many are now comparing Merry’s cable to George F. Kennan’s Long Telegram in its scope and prescience. Merry tells me he finds such comparisons embarrassing—but they are, in my view, both unavoidable and well earned.

One big difference of course is that people in positions of influence listened (at first, anyway) to Kennan, but dismissed Merry—and with predictably disastrous results for the U.S.-Russia relationship. The Harvard-inspired economic policies that fell under the rubric of “shock therapy” (which sought to turn what had been a planned, socialist economy for the preceding 70 years into a free market system on Anglo-American lines overnight) contributed to the largest demographic and economic collapse of a modern industrialized country ever recorded in peacetime. Russian economists and scholars compared the economic and social consequences of the American-imposed austerity program on Russia to that which might have been expected from a “medium level nuclear attack.”

Merry, who served as chief political analyst at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow 1990–1994, saw what so many within the Washington political establishment chose not to see, that the imposition of the set of foreign economic doctrines on Russia was destroying the lives of ordinary  people—as well as transforming U.S.–Russia relations for the worse. 

The story of Washington’s malfeasance toward Russia in the 1990s is not new. The Nobel winner Alexander Solzhenitsyn noted the folly of Washington’s meddling in the post-Soviet space in The Russia Question (1994); the Soviet dissident Andrei Sinyavsky castigated Russia’s Westernizers in The Russian Intelligentsia (1997); here at home, famed Russia scholar Stephen F. Cohen railed against the incompetence of Clinton administration and the myopia of both the scholarly community and the media in Failed Crusade (2000).

Keep reading

What Is the Russo–Ukrainian War About?

Peace was once the objective of American statesmen. Today, however, virtually everyone in Washington seems to favor war. So it is with the Russo–Ukrainian conflict. Donald Trump’s desire to end the fighting has caused barely suppressed horror. 

Unfortunately, if, as rumored, he hopes to achieve peace by threatening Russia with a massive increase in aid to Kiev, his effort is bound to fail. More support won’t remedy Ukraine’s greatest weakness: manpower. More money would, however, betray his supporters who believed they were voting for America First, not Kiev über alles.

The case for peace is clear. The U.S. risks its proxy war against Russia going hot, while pushing the latter into ever closer relationships with China, Iran, and North Korea. Moreover, Washington is heading toward insolvency, spending nearly trillion dollars annually to finance its rapidly escalating debt. All the while, Ukraine is being destroyed.

How does the Washington “Blob” justify Uncle Sam’s latest endless war? With a series of unconvincing and inconsistent arguments. 

Allowing Russia to prevail will undermine the “rules-based international order.” That order is a pious fraud, promoted by states that concocted rules for their benefit and break them when convenient. Indeed, the first Trump administration was infamous for using human rights as a weapon against adversaries while coddling more repressive friends. American policymakers should ask whether the order can survive the West’s multiple violations.

Keep reading