[abraxas]

I don't get why such commitments were made in the first place. Why is it OK for Russia to be dictating what sovereign countries can or cannot do within their own borders? Especially now, given their behaviour on the world stage the West shouldn't pay slightest heed to Russia's demands. Why is it always the liberal democracies that need to bend to the will of the dictators? How about for once we just say "no" to a tyrant?

Also in case you're going to pull out some kind of whataboutism with regards to America's behaviour on the world stage, please spare me. America's no saint but if you're equating its shenanigans with Russia's you have no clue what you're talking about. I grew up behind the iron curtain so I experienced the "Russian Mir" first hand. NATO is not encroaching on Russia. It's the countries bordering Russia that are running the fuck away from its awful embrace. No country that joined NATO after 1989 did it because they were being coerced. They all _begged_ to be admitted and made a lot of sacrifices to get in. Dwell on that before you give credence to any Russia apologetics.

[mcv]

> I don't get why such commitments were made in the first place. Why is it OK for Russia to be dictating what sovereign countries can or cannot do within their own borders?

It wasn't a Russian dictate, it was an agreement. Russia didn't want a strong NATO presence in eastern Europe. NATO of course has to be able to defend its members. But the best defense is if they don't get attacked at all, so if Russia promises not to threaten or attack, then NATO an promise not to commit a large defense there.

But it's been pretty clear that this has been woefully outdated for some time now. Russia does attack its neighbours, takes land from them, and threatens NATO members.

The commitments made sense when Yeltsin was president of Russia. Yeltsin had honestly no interest in conquering, threatening or coercing Russian neighbours. It's a good idea to formalise that so NATO can reduce its military presence. But Putin is very different, and has been very threatening and aggressive. In violation of the treaty, and clearly making NATO presence necessary.

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

It doesn't make it right but hypothetically if your neighbor set up claymore mines facing your property that would be a problem. Don't worry, they won't set them off unless you attack them.

Russia can dictate whatever they want- free countries need to tell them to jump in a lake.

[dzhiurgis]

> if your neighbor

Which says a lot about YOU as a neighbour...

[dredmorbius]

The principles guiding these specific Nato committments will likely be expressed in contemporaneous reports. Here's an NY Times archive search for Nato and Russia in the period 1996--1998:

https://www.nytimes.com/search?dropmab=false&endDate=1998123...

I've yet to read through those (or others elsewhere), but at the time, there was much being made of the peaceful transition of the former Soviet bloc to democratic and independent rule, including the former states of the Soviet Union, some of which remained within Russia, others, including Ukraine, which did not. There was a delicate balance of diplomacy, military concerns, economics, and internal politics in seeking a successful path forward. Committments to ease Russian concerns were all but certainly made under those considerations.

The general principle of spheres of influence or concern are old and long-standing. The US Monroe Doctrine held that any intervention in the political affairs of the Americas was a potentially hostile act against the United States. It was first articulated in 1823 and goverened US policy through the early 20th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_doctrine

See also the Carter Doctrine, which put a specific emphasis on oil:

The notion of a sphere of influence dates to ancient times, though most typically refers to the 19th century and following.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere_of_influence

Put simply: a state's interests and concerns extend past its borders. That does not give unlimited licence to act beyond borders, though this has of course occurred frequently throughout history by any number of parties: Russian and its precursor state the Soviet Union, the United States, the UK and its precursor England, Germany, Japan, China, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran, India, Pakistan, and more. Whether acting unilaterally and without reasonable provocation or expressing interests and concerns, any major state will have such concerns, and will likely have some history of action.

That said, a defensive alliance to which states seek membership on a voluntary basis without coercion from the alliance itself, and in paritcular under a credible hostile external threat, as seems to be the present case with Russia, would be hard to argue against under even the broadest of Sphere of Influence / external concerns constructions.

[raxxorraxor]

> Why is it OK for Russia to be dictating what sovereign countries can or cannot do within their own borders?

This is political reality and what Merkel really meant with Realpolitik. It was very well known that NATO involvement in these countries is seen as aggression and that makes the reaction of Putin almost predictable. Most did not believe he would do the last step and he certainly surprised with that. But Ukraine has to have a relation to Russia too. If they want to associate with former enemies of the Russia, the result might also be a war.

Without context this question is almost comical because western nation more often than any other group of countries to intervene in other countries. Lybia, Iraq, Afghanistan, ... It is simply a question of political will, power and interests. Ukraine suffers from that aggression. It was no secret that it is seen as nothing else. Does it ever justify an invasion? Of course not but that also is of no relevance.

> Also in case you're going to pull out some kind of whataboutism with regards to America's behaviour on the world stage, please spare me.

I probably did just that in your opinion, but "whataboutism" is of no relevance. Geopolitics isn't about morals or justifications for foreign interventions.

[pessimizer]

> I grew up behind the iron curtain so I experienced the "Russian Mir" first hand.

You and millions of others. So that gives you some sort of privilege to tell everyone about America and NATO? Also, Russia is not the USSR.

[abraxas]

> Also, Russia is not the USSR.

Russia is a direct inheritor of the legacy of USSR. Culturally as well as legally. But I digress.

My personal experience is but one data point for you and other westerners. Just be aware that sometimes a spade really is a spade and when I and millions like me tell you that Russia is a piece of shit neighbour then maybe just maybe we are on to something more so than American born, basement dwelling teenage edgelords who tell you otherwise?

[yesbut]

I just view Russia's position similarly to how the US would perceive China wanting to build a security alliance with Canada and Mexico and install advanced weapons systems (capable of reaching US cities in minutes) along Canadia/US and Mexico/US borders. From that perspective it isn't difficult to comprehend why NATO (basically the US) setting up shop on Russia's borders might be perceived as antagonistic to Russia. This isn't rocket surgery.

[abraxas]

> China wanting to build a security alliance with Canada and Mexico and install advanced weapons systems

This analogy is flawed for two reasons.

First, the USA is not trying to build advanced weapons systems on Russia's borders. Russia's neighbours are BEGGING the US to install advanced weapons systems on their borders to keep Russia at bay. That's issue number one.

Issue number two is that this analogy would only work if USA had a history of constantly threatening Canada with military invasion and had a history of abusing and committing genocide against its citizens. In which case would you really then be surprised if Canada sought overseas protection from its abusive next door neighbour?

Just look a bit into the history (go back a few centuries) of what Russia did to its neighbours. Take my native Poland for example. I don't think there was a single century where Russia did not try to meddle with its affairs or outright invade in our 1000 year shared history. The 19th and 20th centuries being particularly brutal as the relative strength of Russia became more disproportionate.

[yesbut]

> Russia's neighbours are BEGGING the US to install advanced weapons systems on their borders to keep Russia at bay. That's issue number one.

The US / NATO is a US weapons sales grift.