Shut Up About NATO Expansion

Summary

Este 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

00:00

🤔 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.

05:00

📜 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.

10:03

🇷🇺 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.

15:05

🔥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.

20:08

🌍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.

25:11

🔄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.

30:12

🎉 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.

Keywords

💡OTAN

La OTAN (Organización del Tratado del Atlántico Norte) es una alianza militar intergubernamental basada en el Tratado del Atlántico Norte firmado en 1949. En el contexto del vídeo, la expansión de la OTAN hacia Europa del Este es presentada como un factor crucial y controvertido en la tensión entre Rusia y los países occidentales, especialmente Estados Unidos. La expansión es vista por algunos como una provocación hacia Rusia y una violación de acuerdos previos, lo que ha llevado a debates sobre si ha sido un factor que justifica las acciones militares rusas en países como Ucrania.

💡Vladimir Putin

Vladimir Putin es el presidente de Rusia y figura central en el vídeo, que examina sus posibles motivaciones y justificaciones para la intervención militar en Ucrania. Se mencionan varias teorías sobre sus objetivos, desde la reconstrucción del antiguo poder soviético hasta la respuesta a la expansión de la OTAN. La personalidad de Putin y sus declaraciones públicas son analizadas para intentar comprender la lógica detrás de las acciones rusas en el contexto geopolítico actual.

💡Ucrania

Ucrania es el epicentro de la crisis descrita en el vídeo, siendo el país que ha sufrido la intervención militar de Rusia. La compleja historia de Ucrania, sus aspiraciones europeas y su posición estratégica entre Rusia y Europa occidental son claves para entender los conflictos actuales. El vídeo explora cómo la situación en Ucrania refleja problemas más amplios de seguridad, identidad y poder en la región.

💡Guerra Fría

La Guerra Fría es el período de tensión geopolítica entre el bloque soviético liderado por la URSS y el bloque occidental liderado por Estados Unidos después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial hasta la disolución de la Unión Soviética en 1991. El vídeo utiliza este contexto histórico para explicar las raíces de las actuales tensiones entre Rusia y Occidente, especialmente en relación con la expansión de la OTAN y la percepción de amenazas a la seguridad.

💡Expansión de la OTAN

La expansión de la OTAN hacia Europa del Este después de la Guerra Fría es presentada en el vídeo como un punto de fricción significativo en las relaciones ruso-occidentales. Esta expansión es percibida por Rusia como una amenaza a su seguridad y una violación de acuerdos implícitos post-Guerra Fría, lo que ha contribuido al deterioro de las relaciones y ha sido utilizado como justificación para algunas de las acciones de Rusia en la región.

💡Crisis de Crimea

La crisis de Crimea en 2014, donde Rusia anexó la península de Crimea de Ucrania, es un evento crucial mencionado en el vídeo. Esta acción es vista como un momento de escalada significativa en el conflicto entre Rusia y Ucrania, y también como un ejemplo de la disposición de Rusia para usar la fuerza militar para alcanzar sus objetivos geopolíticos, aumentando las tensiones con Occidente.

💡Soberanía

La soberanía se refiere al poder absoluto y autoridad de un estado para gobernar sobre su territorio y población sin interferencia externa. En el vídeo, la soberanía de Ucrania es un tema central, ya que las acciones de Rusia en Crimea y otras partes de Ucrania son interpretadas por muchos como violaciones a la soberanía ucraniana y, por extensión, un desafío al orden internacional basado en reglas.

💡Geopolítica

La geopolítica es el estudio de cómo los factores geográficos y territoriales influyen en las relaciones internacionales y las estrategias políticas. El vídeo analiza la situación en Ucrania y la expansión de la OTAN desde una perspectiva geopolítica, considerando cómo la geografía, la historia y la política de la región afectan las decisiones de los actores clave como Rusia, Ucrania y las potencias occidentales.

💡Agresión militar

La agresión militar se refiere al uso de la fuerza armada por un estado contra la soberanía, integridad territorial o independencia de otro estado. El vídeo discute las intervenciones militares de Rusia en Ucrania como ejemplos de agresión militar, analizando las implicaciones de estas acciones para la seguridad regional, las relaciones internacionales y los principios de soberanía y derecho internacional.

💡Filosofía nacionalista

La filosofía nacionalista en el contexto del vídeo se refiere a las ideologías y creencias que enfatizan la importancia de la identidad nacional, la soberanía y, a veces, la superioridad cultural o histórica de una nación sobre otras. Se sugiere que tales filosofías pueden estar influenciando las políticas de Rusia hacia Ucrania y su postura general en el escenario internacional, incluyendo la justificación de acciones militares y territoriales.

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]