- CHROBOG (GERMANY) SAID WE NEEDED NEW IDEAS ON HOW TO PROVIDE FOR THE SECURITY OF CENTRAL AND EAST EUROPEAN COUNTRIES. WE HAD MADE IT CLEAR DURING THE 2+4 NEGOTIATIONS THAT WE WOULD NOT EXTEND NATO BEYOND THE ELBE (SIC). WE COULD NOT THEREFORE OFFER MEMBERSHIP OF NATO TO POLAND AND THE OTHERS. WE MIGHT HOWEVER CONSIDER REFERRING TO OUR INTEREST IN THESE COUNTRIES IN FUTURE NATO DECLARATIONS. FURTHER STEPS COULD BE TAKEN IN THE CSCE AND THROUGH BILATERAL AGREEMENTS.
First of all, why should a German diplomat be allowed to make commitments on behalf of NATO as a whole? A binding commitment would probably have to be agreed on by at least the other four negotiating partners.
Second, the document states that NATO may not offer a membership to the East european countries. However, Poland and the other countries pushed for membership on their own. So that would not violate the (anyway informal) pledge.
I don’t understand why this is considered relevant at all. A waiver of the eastward expansion was never contractually guaranteed. It is a shame that Soviet Union dissolved before a new security architecture including Russia could be established (maybe as a part of NATO as Gorbachev suggested).
Second, the document states that NATO may not offer a membership to the East european countries. However, Poland and the other countries pushed for membership on their own. So that would not violate the (anyway informal) pledge.
That’s not how NATO works I’m afraid. The way NATO documents are written is that it’s NATO that invites countries, and they must be invited by unanimous agreement. Nowhere does it say that countries get to apply to NATO.
I don’t understand why this is considered relevant at all. A waiver of the eastward expansion was never contractually guaranteed.
It’s relevant because western powers are trying to give verbal agreements to Russia right now, and Russia is rightly pointing out that such agreements have been demonstrated to be worthless.
If war is to be avoided then new treaties and security guarantees will need to be signed going forward. I sincerely hope that Europeans understand why a war with a nuclear superpower is a bad idea for everyone.
That’s not how NATO works I’m afraid. The way NATO documents are written is that it’s NATO that invites countries, and they must be invited by unanimous agreement. Nowhere does it say that countries get to apply to NATO.
Thanks for pointing that out. I was not aware of that. This pretty much invalidates my second point.
I do not understand why Putin gets to decide what other sovereign countries get to do.
To my understanding, every country that has joined has done so in line with their own constitutionally valid mechanisms for formation of international relationships. I understand that Putin is uncomfortable with ICBMs at Russia’s border, but why can’t he handle that via arms controls treaties?
Putin doesn’t get to decide what sovereign countries get to do no more than NATO does. The agreements signed in Astana clearly state that countries cannot enhance their security at the expense of security of other countries. NATO expansion directly threatens Russia’s security.
It’s absolutely surreal that people can’t wrap their head around the idea everyone’s collective security should be the top priority.
