U.S. President Bill Clinton sincerely wanted to bring Russia into the NATO fold. European countries, though, were strictly opposed, particularly Germany. Previously classified documents from the 1990s reveal German Chancellor Helmut Kohl's two-pronged strategy.
I remember in 1990s the talk about “Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok”, also having crossed the land border from Russia to China several times during that period, I felt the relative european culture on ‘our’ side. So, yes, there was a lost opportunity, and we could have been more welcoming, but it was not a conspiracy, nor were any specific political groups to blame (as article hints) - rather just the slow muddled consensus-processes of EU and NATO could not cope with any faster expansion, meanwhile russians got impatient and let Putin (KGB) take over, so it went bad.
If we were to redesign the whole structure, I’d say we should abolish NATO and replace it with a mutual defence organisation for democracies anywhere in the world - including Brazil, Japan, India, etc. if they like, but with no permanent membership. There should be clearly specified democratic criteria including freedom for political opposition, media, NGOs, etc., and when these are no-longer fulfilled, a procedure for suspension of rights that requires a large majority but no vetos. So, currently Hungary might be suspended, and even USA if it continues its current track, while democrats in Russia (or in exile from R) might be encouraged to see a long-term pathway open.
Such redesign of NATO - conversion from a tribal members club to a defence of democracy - might even be an face-saving way to end the war.
I agree it was not a conspiracy. Old habits die hard and after forty years of antagonism it is difficult to move away. But Russia was willing to totally reform it’s political and economic system, paid a high price to do so. I cam understand the Russians felling betrayed.
I remember in 1990s the talk about “Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok”, also having crossed the land border from Russia to China several times during that period, I felt the relative european culture on ‘our’ side. So, yes, there was a lost opportunity, and we could have been more welcoming, but it was not a conspiracy, nor were any specific political groups to blame (as article hints) - rather just the slow muddled consensus-processes of EU and NATO could not cope with any faster expansion, meanwhile russians got impatient and let Putin (KGB) take over, so it went bad.
If we were to redesign the whole structure, I’d say we should abolish NATO and replace it with a mutual defence organisation for democracies anywhere in the world - including Brazil, Japan, India, etc. if they like, but with no permanent membership. There should be clearly specified democratic criteria including freedom for political opposition, media, NGOs, etc., and when these are no-longer fulfilled, a procedure for suspension of rights that requires a large majority but no vetos. So, currently Hungary might be suspended, and even USA if it continues its current track, while democrats in Russia (or in exile from R) might be encouraged to see a long-term pathway open.
Such redesign of NATO - conversion from a tribal members club to a defence of democracy - might even be an face-saving way to end the war.
I agree it was not a conspiracy. Old habits die hard and after forty years of antagonism it is difficult to move away. But Russia was willing to totally reform it’s political and economic system, paid a high price to do so. I cam understand the Russians felling betrayed.