NATO Expansion To Russian Borders Unacceptable: Lavrov

[Purveyor]

MOSCOW, Sept. 13 (Xinhua) -- NATO's expansion by pulling more Russia's neighboring countries into the alliance is unacceptable, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Saturday.

"NATO expects to turn as many countries as possible into its member states, and expand to Russian borders -- that's unacceptable," Lavrov said in an interview aired by Moscow's TVC.

"We expect every country to comply with the agreements of ensuring indivisible and overall security in the Euro-Atlantic region, among which the assurances of NATO not expanding eastward play a decisive role," the RIA Novosti news agency quoted the top diplomat as saying.

Lavrov stressed that the nonaligned status of Ukraine, enshrined in Ukrainian Constitution, is a matter of principle for Russia.

"We are convinced that Kiev's choice (of remaining nonaligned) is in the interests of its people and the legitimate interests of all its neighbors and partners, as well as to protect security of the Euro-Atlantic region," Lavrov said.

MORE...

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2014-09/14/c_126983078.htm

[Duckhunter935]

1. "We expect every country to comply with the agreements"

how about Russia comply with the "Budapest agreement" they signed respecting Ukrainian territorial borders and give back Crimea that they invaded and annexed in violation of that agreement.

[Purveyor]

2. But first perhaps NATO should abide by the Two Plus Four Treaty regarding expansion

to the east.

[The Magistrate]

4. Nothing in The Text Of That Treaty, Sir, Says Anything Regarding NATO Expansion

http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/2plusfour8994e.htm

The nearest thing is a banning of nuclear systems from the former Soviet zone of occupation in Germany.

[Purveyor]

6. Some disagree but it is not without surprise the west would renege on the intent.

Jack Matlock, U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union during its final years, said that the West gave a "clear commitment" not to expand, and declassified documents indicate that Soviet negotiators were given the impression that NATO membership was off the table for countries such as Czechoslovakia, Hungary, or Poland.[7]

In 1996, Gorbachev wrote in his Memoirs, that "during the negotiations on the unification of Germany they gave assurances that NATO would not extend its zone of operation to the east,"[8] and repeated this view in an interview in 2008.[9]

According to Robert Zoellick, a State Department official involved in the Two Plus Four negotiating process, this appears to be a misperception, and no formal commitment regarding enlargement was made.[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO

[The Magistrate]

8. The Text Of The Treaty You Cited, Sir, Says Nothing About NATO Expansion

So you can hardly claim that when countries like Poland or Estonia petitioned to join NATO and were accepted, that treaty was broken or disregarded.

It remains a matter of some curiousity to me why Russia should have any say at all in what combinations Ukraine may choose to join, whether economic or military, and why any on the left in particular, should agree and accept it does. Ukraine is, after all, a sovereign state now, however long it may previously have been a Russian or Soviet possession. There is not one argument offered by Russia for this that would not have fully justified a U.S. invasion of Cuba, or U.S. meddling in Venezuela today.

[LittleBlue]

9. Do you think the US would allow China to park

Chinese military hardware in Mexico? Not a chance. After all, we found it intolerable that the USSR tried to put missiles in Cuba. China themselves invaded Korea when we got too close to the Korean border with China.

No major power worth their salt will allow a hostile alliance to park its hardware on their borders, else they cease to be a power. Whether that's explicitly stated in an agreement is irrelevant because it's so well understood that most countries with sense respect that principle. It's no surprise that Russia finds it just as intolerable as we did in Cuba and China did in Korea. Russia won't allow a repeat of Estonia and Latvia in 2004.

To suggest that this is all down to the language in an agreement is disingenuous, and it ignores world history since about 1945.

[The Magistrate]

11. That Is Not The question, Sir: The Question Is, Would We Have Any Right To Do It

And would any on the left support it, agree it was a proper policy, and necessary against Chinese expansion directed at U.S. political and economic dominion over Mexico, which Mexico had no right to break away from. Would you, for instance, if that were done, post in support of a U.S. invasion of Mexico to end Chinese influence there? I do not support U.S. policy embargoing and subverting Cuba, and I do not support U.S. meddling in Venezuela. I do not support Russia's imperialism in Ukraine, either.

It matters very much whether something is in the text of a treaty, because if the text of a treaty does not forbid something, it cannot be said that, when that thing is done, the treaty has been violated. It should not be necessary to state this, but apparently it is.

[LittleBlue]

12. I'm not certain I wouldn't support an American invasion of Mexico if the Chinese

expanded their sphere of influence there. No way can we allow a foreign, hostile power to put their nukes, troops and other military hardware on our own border. That is a recipe for catastrophe as it represents an existential threat to our country. Once great powers allow other great powers to hold a knife to their throats, they have no basis to continue being a power, and their very existence is threatened. Such an action would upset the balance of power that has been responsible for peace between great powers since WW2. A power controls their immediate sphere of influence. That is why China is so sensitive about Taiwan, and why China supports a regime they have come to despise in North Korea.

That is why China repelled our efforts in Korea, it's why we neutralized the Soviet efforts in Cuba, it's why the USSR demanded (and got) the removal of nuclear weapons from Turkey during that same crisis, and it's why we wouldn't tolerate China luring either Canada or Mexico into their sphere.

It has nothing to do with liberalism or conservatism. This is about a great country's effort to avoid being surrounded by hostile powers with nuclear weapons. Attempting to pull Ukraine into NATO is a hostile, provocative action by one power toward another, and should be avoided at all cost. Animals, like countries, don't examine the language of treaties when surrounded by predators. They react. And we should have no complaint if Russia reacts to such a provocation. We'd do it ourselves in the same position. Anyone would.

[The Magistrate]

13. At Least You Are Consistent, Sir

Though the 'surrounded by nuclear weapons' slogan is really a bit tattered. Given the proportion of ICBM delivered war-heads, and of sea-launched missiles, in the nuclear armories of the leading powers, everyone is 'surrounded by nuclear weapons', always, already. The shorter ranged items really confer no significant advantage; they simply cut reaction time a bit.

China's fear in the Korean War was more that the United States would invade Manchuria, and so re-open the Chinese Civil War, only more or less halted quite recently, and in which the United States had been not only a partisan of the defeated Nationalists, but something of an active participant.

Russia's aim in Ukraine is preservation of economic and political dominance, and the restoration of Russia's old land empire. The true significance of NATO membership for Ukraine would be placing permanently out of reach restoration of the Russian empire, as this existed from the late seventeenth century into the late twentieth century.

[LittleBlue]

14. Very curious

Russia's aim in Ukraine is preservation of economic and political dominance, and the restoration of Russia's old land empire. The true significance of NATO membership for Ukraine would be placing permanently out of reach restoration of the Russian empire, as this existed from the late seventeenth century into the late twentieth century.

Let's say I agree, for Russia does seem to want to reestablish their old empire.

On the other hand, I do find it interesting that NATO countries were on high alert when Russia massed their troops on the Russian border, to the point where we urgently sought an agreement to pull them back. Look at Obama's comments:

"But these are not what Russia would normally be doing, and it may be simply be an effort to intimidate Ukraine, or it may be that they've got additional plans."

He added: "In either case, what we need right to resolve and de-escalate tensions is for Russia to move back those troops and begin negotiations."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-crisis-obama-warns-russia-must-pull-back-troops-from-ukraine-border-9221053.html

If Russia's massing of troops on Ukraine's border is considered either "intimidation" or harmful ulterior motives, why would Russia view NATO's expansion into Ukraine as anything less? Should Russia trust in our good intentions, and the good intentions of all future presidents? I think any reasonable person, were they the leader of Russia, would resist this outcome at all costs because they would see it as Obama and the interim Ukrainian government did. And as Kennedy did in Cuba. And as Kruschev did in Turkey. And as Mao and Zhou Enlai did in Korea. These men weren't stupid. Why do we expect Putin to be naive and stupid? No patriotic leader would accept a hostile power moving on to their border.

[The Magistrate]

15. Ukraine Is A Sovereign State, Sir

To mass troops on the border of a neighboring state is a necessary prelude to invasion. Invasion is actual war, it is not political or economic influence, but a definite act of violence.

A choice by Ukraine to align economically with Western Europe rather than Russia, and to align politically and even militarily with the EU and NATO, is not by any stretch of the imagination an act of potential aggression in the same class as deploying several brigades of armor and motorized infantry in positions suitable for invasion across an international border. Trying to claim it is cannot be taken seriously.

Ukraine has a right to no longer be a colony of Russia, and to not be returned to colonial status, just as any other former colony in Africa or Asia or Latin America has. It has a right to solicit aid in this, if it feels it lacks the military power to vindicate that right. It even has the right to choose absorption into a different empire, if it sees this the only means to be sure of escaping the imperium it was formerly possessed by. Russia has no right at all to be the sole exploiter of Ukraine, or to absorb any part of it back into Russia.

The argument Russia is defending itself by its present policy towards Ukraine is far too stretched to bear any weight. If your neighbor says he will kill you, and stands outside your home with a gun in his belt, your claim you shot in self defense has some weight; if your neighbor says he will kill you, and you see him walking in the direction of a store which sells guns, your claim you shot in self-defense has no weight at all.

[tritsofme]

3. After facing decades of brutal Soviet occupation and rule, I cannot blame people

especially in the Baltic states, for wishing to join NATO.

[SidDithers]

5. That's kinda too bad...

Ukraine is a sovereign nation, and can make these decisions on their own.

Sid

[former9thward]

10. Sure, just like Cuba was a sovereign nation ...in 1962.

Didn't work out to well for them. But of course under the Monroe doctrine there are no sovereign nations in the Western Hemisphere.

[BillZBubb]

7. Too bad, Russian whiners.

Treat your neighbors better and they wouldn't be so eager to join NATO.

The latest Russian annexation of Ukrainian territory will only accelerate the expansion of NATO eastward. NATO doesn't have to attack to get countries to join. Russia has to attack to prevent it. Kiev's choice, after Putin's aggression, is going to be a desire to join NATO.