Shut Up About NATO Expansion
Summary
TLDREste guion explora las diversas teorías sobre por qué Rusia, bajo el liderazgo de Putin, inició la guerra contra Ucrania, abarcando desde el deseo de recuperar reservas naturales hasta influencias de filósofos extremistas. Analiza la expansión de la OTAN como una posible provocación percibida por Rusia, citando el cambio en la política exterior estadounidense y las complicaciones geopolíticas resultantes. Se cuestiona la efectividad de estas teorías para explicar completamente las acciones de Rusia, sugiriendo que factores como el resentimiento, la política interna de Putin y teorías más complejas y menos exploradas podrían jugar un papel crucial en este conflicto.
Takeaways
- 🇷🇺 Putin posiblemente inició la guerra en Ucrania por una combinación de motivos, incluidos deseos expansionistas, reacciones a la expansión de la OTAN y teorías filosóficas nacionalistas.
- 🔍 Hay varias teorías sobre las razones detrás de la agresión rusa hacia Ucrania, desde el deseo de Putin de restaurar el antiguo poder soviético hasta respuestas a la expansión de la OTAN.
- 🌍 La expansión de la OTAN hacia el este ha sido interpretada por algunos como una amenaza directa a Rusia, lo que podría justificar, en su perspectiva, acciones defensivas.
- 📚 Expertos y académicos ofrecen diversos análisis sobre la crisis, incluyendo el papel de la OTAN y la percepción rusa de estar cercada.
- 🤔 El papel del nacionalismo y la identidad rusa, según Putin, sugiere una unión espiritual y territorial con Ucrania, lo que complica las dinámicas internacionales.
- 📉 La opinión pública rusa y la influencia de la propaganda interna pueden jugar un papel significativo en el apoyo a las acciones del gobierno en Ucrania.
- 💬 Las declaraciones de Putin sobre la tragedia de la caída de la URSS indican una posible motivación para recuperar territorios y restaurar la influencia rusa.
- 📅 Los acontecimientos históricos, como el acuerdo de no expansión de la OTAN a cambio de la reunificación alemana, resuenan en las tensiones actuales.
- 🚀 La estrategia militar y las decisiones de política exterior de Rusia parecen impulsadas por una mezcla de objetivos estratégicos, percepciones de seguridad y narrativas históricas.
- 🌐 El complejo contexto internacional, que incluye relaciones pasadas entre Rusia y países occidentales, así como la expansión de la OTAN, influye en las acciones y percepciones actuales.
Q & A
¿Cuáles eran las supuestas ganancias de Rusia al iniciar la guerra contra Ucrania?
-Las teorías incluyen desde la captura de reservas naturales de gas hasta influencias de filósofos radicales. Sin embargo, estas no ofrecen una explicación completa.
¿Qué papel jugó la expansión de la OTAN en el razonamiento de Rusia para la guerra?
-Se sugiere que Rusia vio la expansión de la OTAN hacia Europa del Este como una amenaza directa y un acto de agresión por parte de Estados Unidos, lo que contribuyó a su decisión de invadir Ucrania.
¿Qué efectos tuvo la promesa de no expandir la OTAN hacia el este, hecha a Gorbachov?
-Aunque inicialmente se prometió no expandir la OTAN hacia el este, esta promesa se rompió más tarde, contribuyendo a tensiones entre Rusia y Occidente.
¿Cómo reaccionaron los países de Europa del Este ante la expansión de la OTAN?
-Países como Polonia mostraron un fuerte deseo de unirse a la OTAN, buscando garantías de seguridad y llegando a presionar políticamente para su inclusión.
¿Qué consecuencias tuvo para Rusia la rápida transición hacia una economía de mercado en los años 90?
-La transición causó una profunda crisis económica y social en Rusia, exacerbada por políticas de privatización apresuradas y falta de apoyo adecuado.
¿Cómo influyó la política exterior de Estados Unidos en la percepción rusa durante la presidencia de Bill Clinton?
-La decisión de expandir la OTAN, vista como una traición a promesas previas, exacerbó la desconfianza rusa hacia Estados Unidos.
¿Qué papel jugó la invasión de Georgia en 2008 en la relación entre Rusia y la OTAN?
-La invasión de Georgia por parte de Rusia se interpretó como una respuesta directa a los intentos de acercamiento de Georgia a la OTAN, aumentando las tensiones.
¿Cómo cambió la postura de Estados Unidos hacia Rusia y la OTAN con la presidencia de Barack Obama?
-Bajo Obama, hubo un intento de reiniciar las relaciones con Rusia y una disminución en la presión para incluir a Ucrania y Georgia en la OTAN.
¿Cuál fue la reacción de Rusia ante el movimiento pro-occidental de Ucrania, conocido como Euromaidán?
-La respuesta de Rusia al Euromaidán fue invadir Crimea y apoyar a separatistas en el este de Ucrania, citando la intervención occidental como justificación.
¿Influyó realmente la expansión de la OTAN en la decisión de Rusia de invadir Ucrania?
-Aunque la expansión de la OTAN es citada como un factor, la decisión de Rusia también estuvo influenciada por motivaciones internas y la percepción de una oportunidad estratégica.
Outlines
🤔 Análisis de las intenciones de Rusia en el conflicto
Este párrafo explora las posibles razones que impulsaron a Rusia, bajo el liderazgo de Putin, a iniciar un conflicto que parecía predestinado al fracaso. Se mencionan varias teorías, desde el deseo de acceder a los recursos de gas natural de Ucrania hasta la idea de que el Kremlin está influenciado por filósofos locos. También se discute la afirmación de Putin de que la disolución de la Unión Soviética fue una tragedia, y se sugiere que las teorías actuales no explican completamente las motivaciones de Rusia.
📜 Historia y promesas rotas: el debate NATO-Rusia
Este segmento aborda la historia de las negociaciones entre Jim Baker y Mikhail Gorbachev, y la promesa no documentada de no expandir NATO hacia el este. Se describe cómo Estados Unidos se retractó de esta promesa y la implicación de esta acción en la percepción de Rusia. Además, se menciona la teoría de que Rusia actuó en defensa propia ante la expansión de NATO, una narrativa popular que ha sido desafiada por expertos en relaciones internacionales como John Mearsheimer.
🇷🇺 La lucha interna de Rusia y su impacto en la política exterior
Este párrafo relata los eventos que llevaron a la disolución de la Unión Soviética y la posterior crisis económica de Rusia. Se describe el 500 Días program de Gorbachev, los intentos de transición a una economía de mercado y los desafíos que enfrentaron. Además, se menciona el golpe de estado fallido de 1991, la independencia de Ucrania y la decisión de Rusia de abandonar la unión y reconstruir su economía bajo Boris Yeltsin.
🔥Crisis y desafíos en Rusia: la década de 1990
Este segmento detalla la serie de crisis que enfrentaron Rusia y sus repúblicas después de la disolución de la Unión Soviética. Se mencionan la inflación, la crisis parlamentaria, el crimen organizado, la corrupción oficial y la crisis bancaria, así como los dos guerras civiles y el islamismo. También se relata la situación en Chechnya y las tácticas rusas que causaron numerosas bajas civiles.
🌍La expansión de NATO y la respuesta de Rusia
Este párrafo examina la insistencia de países como Polonia en unirse a NATO y las tácticas utilizadas para lograrlo. Se describe el cambio en la política estadounidense de la inacción a la expansión de NATO, y cómo la presión de Eastern Europe y la falta de experiencia en política exterior de Bill Clinton influyeron en esta decisión. Además, se discute la aprobación de Yeltsin para la expansión y las implicaciones políticas de esta acción.
🔄El cambio en la política de NATO y la percepción de Rusia
Este segmento aborda el cambio en la política de NATO hacia la aceptación de nuevos miembros y cómo esto afectó la percepción de Rusia. Se mencionan las acciones de Bush y Obama en relación con Rusia y Ucrania, y cómo estas decisiones influyeron en la relación entre los dos países. Además, se discute la teoría de que Rusia actuó en respuesta a la expansión de NATO, y por qué esta teoría es problemática y no justifica la invasión de Ucrania por parte de Rusia.
🎉 Agradecimientos y reflexiones finales
Este párrafo es un agradecimiento a los patrocinadores y un resumen de los eventos y discusiones previos. No contiene información relevante al tema principal del conflicto entre Rusia y Ucrania, sino más bien actúa como una conclusión al dar las gracias a aquellos que apoyan el contenido.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡OTAN
💡Vladimir Putin
💡Ucrania
💡Guerra Fría
💡Expansión de la OTAN
💡Crisis de Crimea
💡Soberanía
💡Geopolítica
💡Agresión militar
💡Filosofía nacionalista
Highlights
Russia's perceived need to start a war explained through various theories, from pursuing Ukraine's natural gas to philosophical influences.
Putin's complex motivations, from resolving a non-existent humanitarian crisis to claiming spiritual bonds between Ukraine and Russia.
Public theories about the war range from Putin being isolation-crazy to a desire to reunify the USSR.
Analysis of the theory that Russia acted in preemptive self-defense against American aggression through NATO expansion.
The historical narrative of American aggression and Russian victimization, challenging the idea that NATO expansion provoked Russia.
The controversial 1991 promise not to expand NATO eastward and its implications for Russian-American relations.
The shift from cooperation to conflict with NATO expansion, and its effects on Russia's international standing.
Eastern European countries' push for NATO membership as a security guarantee, challenging the narrative of American aggression.
Clinton's diplomatic efforts with Yeltsin to manage NATO expansion, revealing the complexities of international relations.
The impact of leadership changes in the US and Russia on their countries' foreign policies and relations.
Obama's attempts to reset relations with Russia, including adjustments to missile defense plans and nuclear arms reduction.
The Maidan Revolution's role in escalating tensions between Russia and the West, and its impact on NATO expansion discussions.
Putin's refusal to accept offered 'off-ramps' during the crisis, escalating the conflict despite diplomatic efforts.
The 2016 US election interference by Russia as an escalation of conflict, contradicting efforts to improve relations.
The critique of geopolitics experts for overlooking the complexities of Russian motivations and actions.
A unique theory proposing a missing piece to understanding the full scope of the conflict, hinting at a deeper narrative.
Transcripts
so let's cut to the chase here
why what did Russia or at least Putin
think he had to gain by starting this
war it's easy to forget now with Russia
struggling to hold on to its marginal
gains that this was supposed to be the
easy part even if Russia had gotten its
three-day victory in the conventional
War there was always an even bigger
Quagmire waiting for them there at the
finish line if they installed a friendly
government and left it would immediately
be overthrown if they stayed they'd have
to face an Insurgency and if they tried
to just stop at conquering half the
country they'd have to defend a more
than 500 mile long border
so what was the plan here I've heard a
lot of theories from Putin going after
Ukraine's natural gas reserves to a
theory that the Kremlin is enthralled to
insane philosophers who all talk like
Final Fantasy villains every so-called
truth is the matter of believing so we
believe in what we do we believe in what
we say and that is the only way to
divide the truth American cable news
pundits seemed to switch between
thinking it's because he's gone covet
isolation crazy or because he's always
harbored a secret desire to reunify the
USSR for instance did you know that
Vladimir Putin once said the collapse in
the Soviet Empire was a great tragedy
Vladimir Putin was the man who described
the collapse of the USSR as the greatest
geopolitical catastrophe the collapse of
the Soviet Union quote the greatest
catastrophe the greatest geopolitical
tragedy as the greatest tragedy of the
20th century not just a great tragedy
but the greatest geopolitical
catastrophe in the 20th century never
mind World War II even Putin can't
decide on the single story one day he's
claiming he needs to resolve the
imaginary humanitarian crisis in Donetsk
and the next he's writing insane 7 000
word essays on how Ukraine and Russia
are spiritually bonded and what about
the Russian people why are they going
along with this theories seem to range
from them being completely propagandized
to them just all being Orcs And it's
hard not to feel like all of these
theories leave a lot to be desired even
if you combine them however there's one
Theory I feel compelled to debunk in
detail because it is very specific it's
materialist it's intuitive and you sound
like a rational big brain geopolitics
understander when you repeat it and it
embodies a whole historical Narrative of
russian-american relations that is very
popular even among opponents of Putin's
War this is of course the theory that
Russia is acting in preemptive
self-defense self-defense against
American aggression best embodied by
America's decision to expand NATO to
Eastern Europe including potentially
Ukraine in Washington the foreign
Ministers of Canada Denmark Iceland
Italy Norway Portugal and the United
States signed with the nations of
Western Union the North Atlantic Pact
this was no treaty aimed at aggression
but a pledge to cooperate in defense of
the peace for those catching up NATO is
a mutual defense pact if one country is
attacked every other country in NATO is
obliged to help defend it but if one
country decides to go out on its own and
start a war the rest of NATO can say
you're on your own since the alliance
was founded at the start of the Cold War
to deter Soviet power creep expanding it
Eastward could reasonably be interpreted
as an attempt to strangle Russia at a
time when America was supposed to be
softening its posture towards Russia
after all how would America like it if
China formed a military alliance with
Mexico but in many ways the theory that
America provoked the war through NATO
expansion isn't just about NATO it's an
elaborate Narrative of 30 years of
American aggression and Russian
victimization there are several lectures
that have gotten very popular on YouTube
that explain this narrative but the most
watched is this one from renowned
international relations scholar John
mayersheimer the Russians didn't conquer
or invade Crimea because they had a
leasing agreement there's a naval base
at sevastopol and the Russians were
leasing that Naval base from Ukraine so
they had military forces there
mayorscheimer has developed a reputation
among certain communities as the
Cassandra of the Russo Ukrainian war and
as a result has become an extremely
polarizing figure I've linked his
lecture and others in the description
but for the sake of brevity I'll
summarize allow me to present the great
NATO sob story of 1991-2014.
it's 1990 and Secretary of State Jim
Baker has oh no no okay I can't I can't
do voices we're we're gonna have to do
this normal voice
it's 1990 and U.S Secretary of State Jim
Baker and chairman of the USSR Mikhail
Gorbachev are negotiating what to do
about Germany now that the wall has come
down Gorbachev wants Germany to leave
NATO and America wants Germany to stay
in NATO even after it absorbs East
Germany so in order to get Gorbachev's
agreement to let East Germany join NATO
Jim Baker promised America would never
expand NATO to any countries to the east
of Germany that should have been the
happy end of the story but America had
other plans because soon after that
meeting America immediately engineered
the collapse of the Soviet Union then
forced a newly born country of Russia to
destroy its own economy by privatizing
too much or too quickly or by giving
Russia not enough Aid money or by giving
Russia too much Aid money or by
conditioning the aid too much or by
conditioning the aid not enough or
something I don't know it depends on who
you ask everyone kind of glosses over
this point then with Russia crippled
America went back on its work and
annexed Poland czechia and Hungary into
NATO and then lied about there ever
having been an agreement then it refused
to let Russia join NATO proving the open
door policy was a lie and that the
expansion was aimed more towards hemming
in Russia then it bombed Serbia for no
reason
tore up the anti-ballistic missile
treaty immediately started building
interceptors then it annexed the Baltic
states putting NATO troops and missiles
within spitball range of Saint
Petersburg and it was only finally when
America was getting ready to finish the
job by annexing Georgia and Ukraine that
Russia decided it had no choice but to
push back and defend itself by invading
first Georgia and then Ukraine but the
American Empire drunk on its arrogance
in the blood of countless brown people
instead of taking no for an answer
refused to acknowledge Russia's right to
defend itself forcing Russia to escalate
[Music]
now did America say and do those things
some of it but like there's a lot of
missing context and well it might be
easier to go back to the beginning
let's roll the tape back and start over
by the time the summit convened this
morning President Bush and Secretary of
State Baker had shifted its spot so in a
meeting Jim Baker does make an offer to
not expand NATO Eastward but it's not
clear if he meant within Germany or in
Europe as a whole because before you can
discuss it further President Bush tells
him to take the offer back but for a
very convoluted set of reasons Gorbachev
comes away believing that he has an
implicit agreement that NATO won't
expand why didn't Gorbachev push for an
explicit agreement because he was
desperate for cash but the Soviet
president's biggest headache is surely
the economy deteriorating by the day
westerners who work in the Soviet Union
say it's like living in a third world
country Upper Volta with rockets is the
way one put it Gorbachev was taking heat
from all sides the leaders of the
republics wanted more autonomy the
people wanted an end to empty shelves
and the hardliners in the KGB wanted
Gorbachev to focus on holding together
the Empire so Gorbachev to keep his head
above water brought together a team of
experts and economists and they created
a plan for a relatively quick but
orderly transition from an entirely
state-run economy to a mixed market
economy the plan was called the 500 Days
program and it would keep the union
together get food back on the shelves
and provide enough autonomy for the
republics to be happy without having to
dissolve the Soviet Union but for it to
work the Soviet Union was going to need
a lot of Aid money so Gorbachev spent
the first half of 1991 going around the
West trying to sell the plant and the
answer he got got back from the United
States was
maybe later well that's fine Gorbachev
would just have to hold on for another
year he was still getting money from the
Germans and with that he could buy
[Music]
this is
they first moved in at 4am the first
sign of the coup d'etat that removed
Mikhail Gorbachev from Power with tanks
in Red Square the official word from the
new government calling itself the
National Emergency committee was that
the architect of glasnost and
perestroika was too ill to continue in
office mihail Gorbachev is now on
vacation he is very tired after these
many years and he will need some time to
get better
the thousands still leningrad's Palace
Square to demonstrate against the coup
and cheer their Republic leader Boris
Wilson supporters reacted with their
bare hands building makeshift barricades
with whatever piece of disused Machinery
or brickwork was available
speaking around the Russian Federation
building people are defying the 11 P.M
to 5 a.m curfew the people there say
that they do not obey the laws of the
military Hunter they obey only the laws
of Russia and the decrees of Boris
Yeltsin how does a ragtag crowd prepare
to fight a division of Tanks they toss a
few more bricks on their flimsy
barricade pile up sticks and stones and
post a few more slogans the Soviet Union
has entered its second night under
military rule after a day of growing
Defiance and Rising fears of Bloodshed
there has been now a report in from
Reuters the British news agency the
three people were shot dead outside the
Russian Parliament by Soviet tank Crews
military convoys were seen heading out
of Moscow tank drivers confirmed the
coup was ending two people manning the
barricades here the first sign the coup
was faltering lay in the fact there was
no all-out attack on the Russian
Federation headquarters the withdrawal
came after dissension had developed in
the military at least two crack Airborne
divisions revealed they had thrown their
allegiance to Yeltsin less than three
days after being placed under house
arrest by communist hardliners the
Soviet president is to return to Moscow
to retake the reins of government the
fate of the coup plotters remains
unknown the end of the rally the Russian
flag was hoisted above the Parliament
building in place of the hammer and
civil tens of thousands of people
outside Boris yeltsin's headquarters
were elated in their view he had saved
the day victoriously they waved the
Russian flag and one speaker said the
Black Knight of fear had become a new
day of freedom
[Music]
feel free
the attempted coup of August 1991 only
lasted three days but that was more than
enough to convince Ukraine that it
couldn't wait for a compromise anymore
it declared independence five days later
but you already know the rest of
Ukraine's story Russia on the other hand
faced the prospect of a majority Muslim
and Asian Soviet Union so Russia decided
to quit the union too and refocus on
rebuilding its economy under the
guidance of its newly Sovereign
president Boris Yeltsin it is indeed a
great honor for me to address the
Congress of the great land of Freedom as
the first ever over one thousand years
of history of Russia popularly elected
president as a citizen of the great
country which has made its choice in
favor of Liberty and democracy but the
now Russian reformers realized they
faced a much darker Choice unlike the
other republics the power ministries of
the Russian State the KGB the Ministers
of the heavy Industries and the military
industrial complex were still still
being run by people either involved with
or at least sympathetic to the coup
Yeltsin became convinced that if he
wanted to Stave off another reactionary
push he'd have to disband them and that
the only way to get a market system in
place was to do it all at once in order
to make it a fey accompli before anyone
could stop him even though this would
mean privatizing property before
actually having a way of protecting
property rights or ending price controls
without controlling the money supply or
restructuring the economy without
building a social safety net in other
words their choice was between
destroying the state or going back to
the Brezhnev era so the reformers became
revolutionaries and Russia's experiment
in social democracy became an experiment
in anarcho-capitalism with predictable
results some prices have jumped even
more than the three four or five times
they'd expected this bottle was selling
for eight times the price it could have
been pulled for yesterday president
Yeltsin emerged as the winner of a
bloody power struggle with his opponents
in Parliament and their allies on the
streets outside the building bodies
still lay where they fell
there was still no official estimate of
the number killed inside though the City
Medical authorities said nearly 500 had
been treated for injuries over the
weekend Russia sent a force of more than
40 thousand into the Republic of
chechnya and heading towards the capital
of grozny troops from Russia's interior
Ministries scramble at the site of an
approaching armored personnel carrier
they don't know if it's one of theirs or
one of the chechens as it passes they
opened fire wildly still none the wiser
who they're firing at steravoitova was
gunned down in the hallway of her St
Petersburg apartment in late November
most Russians regard the killing of this
pro-democracy Member of Parliament as a
political murder and as evidence that
their country's post-soviet reform era
is ending for Russian people democracy
is synonym of criminal Anarchy renovo
democracy as working rule of the law
mechanisms they don't know what it is
anarchy Russians tried to withdraw their
savings from tanks while the country's
Financial system appeared to Teeter on
the brink of collapse the government
virtually defaulted on its debt and the
ruble crashed in August and Russia has
continued to pound villages with their
heavy guns a tactics with Chechen say
has caused numerous civilian casualties
at times Russian soldiers have shut down
the English Setia border and even shot
the fleeing refugees Commandos stormed a
school in southern Russia Today where
militants held hundreds of hostages
Russian news accounts said more than 200
people were killed more than 701 many
were children an inflation crisis a
parliamentary crisis a street crime
crisis an organized crime crisis an
official corruption crisis and
alcoholism crisis a banking crisis a
sovereign debt crisis two Civil Wars and
an islamist Insurgency all in the span
of 10 years and the KGB hardliners who
forced this outcome would spend the next
30 Years blaming foreigners and use
[Music]
meanwhile in America today
Asian raised in the shadows of the Cold
War assumes new responsibilities in a
world warmed by the sunshine of Freedom
Bill Clinton takes office in 1993 with
his zero years of foreign policy
experience on a platform 100 focused on
domestic issues he immediately faces a
dilemma Russia is on fire and it looks
like there's already a 50 50 chance it's
a lost cause for the next 20 years
unless you do something to protect the
other countries of Eastern Europe they
might get dragged down with it but if
you make moves on those countries
Russians would interpret it as
aggression and you might accidentally
push Russia into the abyss by trying to
hedge your bets when being nice to
Russia might move it closer to America
and the foreign policy establishment in
America seemed to be almost split 50 50
on what to do next so why did America
ultimately decide to take its Chances
with antagonizing an incredibly unstable
Russia that's where the agency of
Eastern Europe comes in you will
sometimes see people who supported NATO
to expansion complained that the NATO
expansion sob story ignores the fact
that Eastern Europe wanted to join NATO
saying America expanded NATO basically
treats these countries as pawns rather
than real people with real aspirations
but that argument's wrong because even
that argument understates Eastern
Europe's agency
countries like Poland didn't get into
NATO by just begging until America took
pity Poland blackmailed its way into
nato in 1994 Bill Clinton's first plan
for Eastern Europe was not to expand
NATO but rather to create a NATO holding
room called The partnership for peace
this partnership will advance a process
of evolution for NATO's formal
enlargement it looks to the day when
Naco will take on new members who assume
the alliance's full responsibilities
it will create a framework in which
former Communist States and others not
now members of NATO can participate with
NATO members in joint military planning
training exercises and other efforts in
the pfp everyone in Europe could join at
once with little Fanfare pfp would allow
Eastern Europe and America's military to
collaborate thus helping to facilitate
their democratic transition and it also
meant you could do all the prep work for
letting countries into NATO without
announcing it and hurting Russia's
feelings but for the three then four
countries at the Western end of Eastern
Europe Poland Czechoslovakia and Hungary
this was not good enough they wanted a
security guarantee they wanted NATO's
Article 5 an attack on one is an attack
on all and no one wanted it more than
Poland so the president of Poland
invited Boris Yeltsin to a state dinner
got him drunk and tricked him into
signing a letter saying that Russia
didn't mind to pull and joined NATO when
that didn't work polish officials
started implying that without Article 5
protection Poland would have no choice
but to defend itself by pursuing a
nuclear weapons program and when that
didn't work Eastern Europe moved on from
the nuclear option and tried the real
nuclear option today we're pleased to be
introducing
the NATO enlargement facilitation Act
and we're honored to be joined by a true
hero of the Cold War
elect Valencia Poland and Hungary share
our Western values our Western standards
and there is no reason or excuse for the
unending delay which the Clinton
Administration has orchestrated in not
implementing this much needed expansion
of NATO for the future security of
Europe and the United States we cannot
use the excuse of a Russian election or
real or perceived objections of any
Russian leader to what is in the best
interest of the people of Europe and the
United States I am confident that a dole
Administration will pursue this issue as
a high priority they started coming to
Washington and meeting with Republicans
you have to understand it wasn't just
the names like Lech valenza and blossov
havl carried a lot of weight
internationally there were also still
huge Emigrant communities from these
countries in the United States and most
of them had settled in the swing states
of the Midwest Valencia and Havel even
implying they would campaign for the
Republicans was terrifying a fear which
only got worse after the Democrats were
wiped out in the 1994 midterm elections
so Clinton gave in while the partnership
is not NATO membership neither is it a
permanent holding room
it changes the entire NATO dialogue so
that now the question is no longer
whether NATO will take on new members
but when and how there were good good
but wrong reasons to think that Russia
would even with this provocation still
tolerated and keep moving towards the
West even possibly joining Nato one
reason was China it was not exactly hard
to predict that the main challenge in
the decades to come to American hegemony
was going to come from the rapidly
growing nuclear power with four times
America's population and the Chinese
government wasn't as notoriously
Mercurial so one outcome America was
banking on was that Russia would realize
it had more to fear from China than from
America and look to America for
protection I had one interesting comment
our conversation was the gun office is
repeated with Levin they talked about
they don't want this NATO expansion they
know it's not in their security interest
and on and on and said well and if you
do that we may have to look to China and
I couldn't help using the local
expression for my state by saying since
I've gone off lots of luck in your
senior year
um you know uh good luck and tonight if
that doesn't work dry ramp
um and uh I'm serious I said that to
them but from Russia's point of view
Chinese unpredictability was a reason to
never join NATO because joining NATO
would put Russia on the front line of
any chinese-american confrontation but
Russia also constantly gave off mixed
signals in addition to the permission
letter Yeltsin gave to Poland Russia
could never get its story straight as to
what its objections to Nato expansion
were sometimes they seem to want nato in
its entirety to be replaced by a
militarized osce sometimes yeltsin's
officials would claim that actually they
didn't mind if dato expanded but they
were worried how nationalists and voters
within the country would react but most
often opponents of NATO expansion would
complain that NATO expansion was
humiliated and I'm not persuaded by the
assurances that we hear that Russia has
nothing to worry about yet the knob you
may not humiliate a nation a people and
think that it'll have no consequences
and complaining about humiliation was
proud probably the worst way to convince
America not to expand NATO because from
America's point of view humiliation is
just an inevitable part of losing your
Empire the Dutch had to be humiliated at
Surabaya the British had to be
humiliated at Suez the French had to be
humiliated at Oren and America had to be
humiliated in Saigon but they all got
over it
kind of losing your Empire is supposed
to be humiliating you did a bad thing so
Russia would get over it it was hoped
the kremlin's public opposition to
enlargement in my view is largely a
question of a psychological problem they
are undergoing now
connected with the loss of Empire
wounded pride and most importantly
uncertainty about Russia's place in the
world of the 21st century and were you
in their spot you would be the same in
my view and I would but this is where
another important bit of context usually
gets lost Clinton didn't just announce
the expansion of NATO he went to Yeltsin
and got Yeltsin to agree to let it
happen because here's the thing about
NATO expansion Russia was actually
powerful enough to prevent it they had
demonstrated that in 1992 when Russia
ran the same playbook in Moldova that
they would play in Ukraine 22 years
later the president of Moldova today
accused Russia of waging an undeclared
war against his former Soviet Republic
he said Russian members of a former
Soviet Red Army stationed in Moldova
were fighting alongside Slavic
separatists against the moldovan
government funding an ethnic separatist
War dividing the country de facto but
not De Jour and using the violence to
arm twist Moldova into a green to never
join NATO and even if they hadn't the
Russians still had a lot of Leverage in
the form of nuclear proliferation
everyone understood this they just
didn't like saying it so when Yeltsin
started complaining that NATO expansion
violated the unwritten agreement from
the German reunification deal publicly
the United States said there was no
agreement and it didn't need Russia's
permission while privately Clinton tried
to offer concessions to Yeltsin in order
to buy his cooperation so Clinton gave
geltsin four and a half billion dollars
in Aid a promise that nuclear weapons
wouldn't be deployed into new member
states an agreement that no major
Conventional Weapons or permanent bases
would be deployed in the new member
states and most importantly an agreement
not to announce any of this until the
Autumn of 1996. why was that so
important because Russia held its
presidential elections in the summer of
1996 and America held its presidential
election in November of 1996. so the
fall of 96 was the Goldilocks period
where it could come soon enough to help
Clinton politically but would do the
least damage to Yeltsin politically
today I want to State America's goal by
1999 NATO's 50th anniversary and 10
years after the fall of the Berlin Wall
the first group of countries we invite
to join should be full pledged members
of NATO
but why lie about it for one it served
the political purposes of both countries
for Clinton it allowed him to look tough
for Republicans who were rapidly hostile
to anything that looked like
multilateralism and it kept America's
options open in the future also
acknowledging a Russian veto would be a
de facto repudiation of the Helsinki
final act the treaty saying European
countries could choose their own
alliances more importantly for Yeltsin
it was political cover from the
nationalists for taking the deal you see
he wasn't trading away Poland for
campaign cash he was being steamrolled
by America against his best efforts and
it worked for Yeltsin and Clinton but
the relationship between Yeltsin and
Clinton was somewhat special while they
personally liked each other they
couldn't really bridge the gap in trust
between their respective countries and
their attempts to bring America and
Russia closer together both of them were
constantly sabotaged by their
legislatures and both were hounded by
accusations that they were selling the
country out to the other side and soon
both would be replaced by decidedly more
aggressive successors the people you
liberate will witness The Honorable and
decent Spirit of the American Military
with George Bush there's less Nuance to
add we spent a lot of time in our
relationship trying to get rid of the
Cold War
uh it's over it ended he did
unilaterally tear up the anti-ballistic
missile treaty not even giving Congress
let alone Russia much of a heads up he
did invade Iraq and convince the world
that America was too megalomaniacal to
be trusted as World Police he did start
building interceptors in Europe and last
but not least he did push to get Ukraine
and Georgia into a NATO membership
action plan against the advice of France
Germany and several of his own advisors
and instead of offering to trade Rush of
something for it he just did it out of
the blue during Bucharest we must make
clear that NATO welcomes the aspirations
of Georgia
and Ukraine for their membership in NATO
and boy did Russia respond
or that lasted only six days but which
had a profound effect on a country and a
region on the edge of Europe so case
closed right the great NATO sob story is
still basically right if America had
just shown more restraint on NATO Russia
wouldn't have invaded Ukraine and yeah
the NATO sob story does I think explain
if not justify the 2008 invasion of
Georgia but we're talking about Ukraine
not Georgia and six years had passed in
between the two Wars and it's those six
years in which the great NATO sob story
goes from the sort of having a point to
just Shameless lying because it was in
2008 when the Great NATO sob story
actually gained a lot of fans both
inside and outside the foreign policy
establishment and John mayersheimer's
brand of realism influenced restraint
gained a number of admirers and one of
them was now the 44th President of the
United States in a cold war in which
Muslim majority countries were too often
treated as proxies
without regard to their own aspirations
I've come here to Cairo to seek a new
beginning
once Barack Obama became president
Russia was allowed back into the G8 a
deal was made to move the interceptors
out of Europe and move them to boats in
the Black Sea and while the U.S never
publicly renounced letting Ukraine and
Georgia into NATO Obama also reiterated
that to join countries needed
territorial integrity and a referendum
on joining Georgia didn't have full
territorial integrity and in Ukraine a
majority of the population was against
entering NATO President Obama talked as
if it would need a referendum it would
need reforms before any new countries I
mean for example George and Ukraine
joined nature was this new policy was he
saying something new here absolutely not
that's been the requirement those are
requirements for NATO membership since
the NATO began and so we're not seeing
anything new that was this is the way he
did but to stated in the way he did with
that audience what was he trying to do I
I don't want to over interpret the
ukrainians moved on elected janakovich
and agreed to host a Russian military
base on Crimea for the next 30 Years
blocking itself out of NATO until the 21
importance and this reproachment worked
at First Russia agreed to a massive
reduction in strategic nuclear arms
agreed to let American troops travel
through Russia to Afghanistan and put
sanctions on Iran to pressure them into
nuclear talks and then the maidan
happened protesters here are fighting
back
attempting to defend themselves with
fireworks motels cocktails and Russia
went crazy killed thousands of innocent
people and scapegoated America for it
anyway and no one in America could see
any compelling reason for why it
happened that's why people like Barack
Obama and Angela Merkel kept bending
over backwards to offer Russia off-ramps
it's not because they liked or respected
Russians more than other Eastern
Europeans it's just that they'd both
more or less come to the conclusion that
Vladimir Putin had simply made a mistake
out of peak and could thus be lured back
with the right encouragement
but as we went over in part two not only
did Putin refuse every off-ramp he kept
escalating throughout 2014 despite
already having a practical assurance
that Ukraine couldn't join NATO and then
even though America couldn't even be
bothered to send Ukraine weapons Russia
decided to escalate the Ukraine conflict
further into a second Cold War by
attacking the American elections in
2016. a move that completely backfired
and led to America sending Ukraine
weapons
this is Putin's Master tactical plan the
people who made their name on The Great
NATO sob story like John mayersheimer
just kind of skipped this part now and
that's why Washington hates these people
it's not because he's telling them hard
truths they don't want to hear it's
because America did what he wanted for
six years and when that didn't work
instead of admitting fault he just
furiously rewrote history to blame them
so he could pretend he was still right
and that type of careerist historical
revisionism would be forgivable if there
was nothing at stake but his reputation
but there is substantially more at stake
now there are many people say the
Russians are going to go on a rampage
they're going to try and re-establish
the Soviet Union or greater Russia and
so forth and so on uh that's not going
to happen uh Putin is much too smart for
that you remember what happened when the
Russians invaded Afghanistan you
remember what happened when we invaded
Afghanistan you remember what happened
when we and invaded Iraq remember what
happened when the Israelis invaded
Southern Lebanon you want to stay out of
these places in fact if you really want
to wreck Russia what you should do is
encourage it to try and Conquer Ukraine
Putin again is much too smart to do that
so was NATO expansion a bad idea maybe
probably yes yes it was at a time when
America should have been paying special
attention the stabilizing Russian
democracy Bill Clinton corrupted that
relationship in order to rush through a
policy that didn't need to be rushed to
satisfy a special interest voting block
for an October surprise campaign stunt
in an election that he would have won
anyway and everyone in Washington just
kind of crossed their fingers and hoped
everything would work out because it was
after all the end of history but does
NATO's expansion justify Russia's war on
Ukraine not in the moral sense just in a
amoral geopolitic sense no you see the
point of the NATO sob story isn't really
geopolitics it's about making the case
that America is especially evil and
duplicitous and America is not
especially duplicitous America is not
anything because countries are not
actually sentient balls with enduring
personality traits there I ideas America
can't have a duplicitous foreign policy
it doesn't have a foreign policy at all
presidents have foreign policies and
there's less continuity between them
than people would like to imagine for
instance when Yeltsin first started
complaining about how NATO expansion
violated an agreement with James Baker
there was no one in the state department
who had worked for Bush on Russian
issues anymore and the Clinton guys had
barely been briefed by their
predecessors so they had to spend a week
just tracking down retired German and
American officials to ask what Boris
Yeltsin was talking about but the great
NATO sob story isn't interesting because
it's true or because it's false but
because it illustrates The Perennial
problem of foreign relations between
democracies and autocracies autocracies
tend to see the chaotic wheeling and
dealing of democracies as malicious
subterfuge and democracies tend to think
their problems within autocracy will be
solved by the next regime change and so
hurt feelings are almost guaranteed in
the russian-american relationship but
hurt feel things are not the basis of a
sound foreign policy even if Russia was
right to feel entitled to a sphere of
influence encompassing all the former
Soviet Union attacking Ukraine wasn't
going to reverse the baltic's entry into
NATO and it didn't prevent Ukraine from
joining NATO because Ukraine wasn't
joining nato in the first place and even
if it was Russia could have stopped a
Crimea and also and I cannot believe
this needs to be explained to [ __ ]
geopolitics experts Russia has a nuclear
deterrent they do not need land buffers
at all but is it the 19th century are
they worried about General Mannheim
zombie army do they also need more
crossbowmen for their star forts
there's nothing realist about
substituting resentment for actually
making sure a war will make your country
stronger did resentment play a role sure
probably along with Putin's fear of his
domestic opposition all the weird hyper
nationalist philosophers and he probably
really does believe this goofy spiritual
thing about ukrainians and Russians
being one people but even if you combine
all that there's still a big missing
piece and I think I have found that
missing piece but it is a weird weird
story like Thomas pension novel weird
story Buckle it
[Music]
and now a special thank you to my
patrons
Diana banana
big nove the Anno
Kima Berry
tedsville
knowing better
Zach Christensen
Scott Beckett 'sai
Joel Gomez Carl Neo
Armin hinderberg
Rob field red Rex
Ari and I
taboon Zoo beers ananas
balind Kovach
Aki 665 Burns and Cullen
[Music]
[Applause]
Просмотреть больше связанных видео
![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/wzJdJxoLPw8/hq720.jpg?sqp=-oaymwEmCIAKENAF8quKqQMa8AEB-AH-CYAC0AWKAgwIABABGH8gFigkMA8=&rs=AOn4CLAXe2tPoPt9nCfHTDg8VmGaURnw0Q)
La Base 4x98 part 1
![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/d8-sffW0xT8/hq720.jpg)
The Death of Russia
![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/gCWG8jGdB2g/hq720.jpg?v=664e1b1b)
SACHS: "¡ESTADOS UNIDOS QUIERA GUERRA!" - ENTREVISTA DOBLADA AL ESPAÑOL
![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/l-NMg3wedzU/hq720.jpg)
¡La 3a GUERRA MUNDIAL más CERCA que NUNCA! ⚔ | Draw My Life en Español
![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/HeUeCoYzyVw/hq720.jpg?v=666872f1)
¡EE.UU. ya se lo piensa! Putin revela cuál será su respuesta si la OTAN no escucha esta advertencia
![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/L-L_J4JiBPE/hq720.jpg)
El Audio Filtrado que demostraría los planes de un Ataque Alemán a Rusia | Inna
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)