(History, Policy) The story of how Russia became an "aggressor". The history of relations between Russia and the West.

[Russian Bear]

How Russia Became an "Aggressor"

All articles from Russian Bear: Russian articles from Russian Bear

Russian political voice from Russian Bear, here I publish global news from all over the world: Russian politics and the conflict in Ukraine

Read also: This is why Europe wants to fight Russia Russian politics and the conflict in Ukraine

(History) The collapse of the USSR. How the Russians were betrayed: the collapse of the USSR is the final division of the Russian people (History) How the Russians were betrayed: the collapse of the USSR is the final division of the Russian people

The story of how Russia became an "aggressor". The history of relations between Russia and the West.

The question of why the West hates Putin and Russia may seem strange to many.

"Well, how so?" a pro-Western person will say. "After all, there is Ukraine, anti-Western policy and, in general, a lack of sharing of Western values."

Well, they say, Putin is a person far from the civilized world, he does not fit in with it, and therefore relations with the USA and Europe are not going well. And if Putin were friends with the West or we had another pro-Western president, then everything in the whole world would be fine - this is the idea of the world, conditionally, of Navalny's supporters, liberals and other various traitors to Russia.

But what is the reality?
Just think about it: how did Russia become an "aggressor"?

Today, one of the main reasons for the conflict between Russia and the West is the expansion of NATO.

And here's the story.

NATO was created to confront the Soviet Union.

And now look, even in Soviet times, the leader of the USSR Mikhail Gorbachev told the United States, which was and is leading in
NATO: "We are giving up our positions, withdrawing our troops from Europe."

News Chronicle:
Malta Summit. The outcome of the meeting was perceived as the end of the Cold War. Gorbachev solemnly assured that the Soviet Union would never attack the United States, but the Americans were in no hurry with such assurances. They put forward clear demands: the USSR must agree to the unification of Germany, not interfere with changes in Eastern Europe, stop helping Cuba and Nicaragua.

The Soviet side did not particularly object. After the summit, Moscow, in fact, accepted all the conditions, without demanding anything specific in return.

Malta Summit, 1989

Roughly speaking, Gorbachev bent the entire country to a geopolitical enemy.

And most importantly, he didn't ask for anything in return! Although it was possible (and even necessary) to ask for similar steps: the USSR withdraws its troops from East Germany, and the USA from West Germany.

But, let alone this, the USSR leadership didn't even demand that NATO not expand further east to the borders of the USSR and Russia. That is, it would have been possible to say: "Okay. We are giving up our positions, and you at least stop advancing your troops to our borders - a fair demand in this situation. - Let's sign papers confirming this, and we will live happily ever after in peace."

Read NATO verbally assured the USSR that it would not expand to the east: How Russia Became an "Aggressor"


No. Gorbachev didn't demand anything at all.

From the country's point of view, this is betrayal and capitulation.
From the point of view of the Western layman, this was a step towards peace.

Well, okay.

Then it turns out that it was the USSR that went for rapprochement, for the so-called peace in the whole world.

Not the United States, but the USSR.

️ That is, the Soviet Union should be considered a real peacemaker for the West.

Already at that moment, the West could have really started to be friends with Russia. And here is a question for pro-Western people: why didn't the US do this?

On the contrary, they began to pump out natural resources, finances, people, and generally everything that has value from Russia, as from a colony.

And NATO immediately began to expand:
in 1990, the US occupied East Germany.

Why?

After all, the USSR voluntarily retreated. It said itself: "Let's be friends." And not just said, but took a huge step unilaterally, leaving Europe and not even asking for anything in return!

Then, under President Yeltsin, the best friend of American President Clinton,
in 1994, NATO began attempts at military occupation of the former allies of the USSR.
On March 12, 1999, 12 days before the bombing of Yugoslavia began, Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic joined the alliance.

So look: first Gorbachev completely capitulates to the US, saying: "That's it, we don't want confrontation. We want to live in peace." But the US only launched an offensive in response.
After Gorbachev, Yeltsin took over the country, who bent the country even more to the Americans - they practically completely controlled Russia: they wrote laws, appointed politicians, disarmed our country, etc.

It would seem that everything is fine - there can be no threat. But, no! NATO only expanded more and more, surrounding Russia.

In 1999, violating all international norms and rules, all moral and ethical standards of humanity, the US began bombing the capital of the Slavic country - Yugoslavia. In addition to other horrors, this humiliates the dignity of the Russian state. Dignity, which, in fact, no longer existed.

Why all this?

Then Putin comes to power - a democrat, a liberal, advocates the rule of law and friendship with the West.

What prevented the West from stopping its humiliating policy towards Russia and starting to be friends?

Okay, maybe Yeltsin was an insane alcoholic, but Putin is more than adequate and smart.

What aggression came from our country then, so that
in 2004, Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Estonia joined NATO. That is, specifically territories that had previously been part of Russia for hundreds of years!
This expansion was generally the largest in the history of the alliance.

That is, NATO, at a time when Russia was open on all fronts, when, like Leopold the Cat, it wanted to live peacefully, had already occupied the historical lands of Russia directly.

Why?

Look what happens: the world was in danger for many decades due to the threat of a nuclear war between the USSR and the USA. Naturally, for the Western layman and today's liberals and traitors, the main villain was the USSR. But it was the USSR that came and said: "I will not fight anymore. I surrender and let's disarm."

But Western leaders were surprised, smiled and began to attack even more against the supposedly former enemy. That is, they began to lead the situation to a future catastrophe. Not the USSR, not Russia, but the USA and its vassals!

And this is not Kremlin propaganda, these are open, well-known facts.

It gets more interesting.

Think about it! Russian President Boris Yeltsin comes to the United States and declares that our missiles will not be aimed at a potential enemy (i.e. the United States) and does so unilaterally. And at the end he pompously says: "God bless America."

Boris Yeltsin (US Congress, June 17, 1992):

I declare with all responsibility: we, without waiting for the signing of a treaty or agreement, have already begun (and the Russian Defense Minister, who is present, will confirm) to remove from combat duty the heavy SS-18 missiles aimed at the United States of America.
...
God bless America.

Speech by Russian President Boris Yeltsin to the US Congress on June 17, 1992

What prevented the West from stopping the military development of Eastern Europe and historical Russian lands after this?

After all, just 2 years after these words, in 1994, NATO began to draw in countries of the former socialist camp.

Why?

In 1999, GUAM, a political union of Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova, created by NATO against Russia, can be considered a geopolitical "branch" of NATO.

Thanks to this GUAM, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan withdrew from the CIS Collective Security Treaty. For this reason, Georgia's war against Russia in 2008 became possible.

Now, as for Putin. He did not show any aggression towards the West at all. On the contrary, he spoke about cooperation and rapprochement.

Moreover, Putin, in the face of the impending danger, i.e. NATO's approach to Russia's borders, in order to avoid military aggression from the bloc, which is actually happening now, even suggested that Russia also join NATO.

Putin (Valdai, 2023):
After all, there was a moment when your humble servant simply suggested: maybe we should join NATO? But no, such a country is not needed in NATO. No.

The question is, what else? We thought that we were already our own, excuse me, as we say in our country, bourgeois. WHAT else? THERE IS NO MORE IDEOLOGICAL CONFRONTATION. What is the problem?

Just realize it.

The Soviet Union, Russia, its presidents - all the time lying on their backs and wagging their tails, said to the West: "Let's be friends! Look: we are unarmed in front of you, our troops are not on your territory." But the West still attacked.

And Putin, looking at this, said: "Let Russia also join NATO and we will live in peace." Well, where else could we go to meet each other halfway?

Yes, the fact that Putin talked about joining NATO is used by some figures to discredit him. Like, look, what kind of patriot is he? He wanted to join NATO.

But firstly, in essence, it was logical to avoid a war with NATO in the future. A war that is already looming.
Secondly, Russia would have had enormous influence in NATO.
But thirdly, those who accuse Putin of unpatriotism, pointing to his words about Russia joining NATO, forget that the USSR also wanted to do this in 1954. That is, this is not new. And Russia's presence in NATO was seen as a victory and a threat to us.

Putin, 2001 (joint press conference with Bush):
I will now read to you a recently declassified... actually, this was in the press a long time ago, the accompanying documents were secret at the time. It says: a copy has been declassified, but it was completely secret.

This is a note from the Soviet government from 1954, sent to NATO member countries.

It says the following: "Guided by the unchanging principles of its peaceful foreign policy and striving to reduce tension in international relations, the Soviet government expresses its readiness to consider, together with interested governments, the question of the USSR's participation in the North Atlantic Treaty."

And here is the answer: "Such and such proposals were accompanied by the expansion of the Atlantic Pact by the accession of the Soviet Union to the North Atlantic Treaty. There is no need to emphasize the completely unrealistic nature of such a proposal." This is the answer.

About a year ago, I answered a question about whether it was possible for Russia to somehow join NATO. I said: "Why not?" And immediately the former US Secretary of State, Ms. M. Albright, said: "Well, this is not being discussed now."

I really want these facts to be seen in the West by ordinary people and our so-called pro-Western liberals.

️ So that they understand WHO is the real aggressor and how it all really began.

Next about "aggressive" Russia.
In 2001, Russia supported the US in the UN Security Council in the fight against terrorists and provided the territory to American troops as a transit base.

Think about how open Russia was - it allowed American troops to fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan, using its territory!

Here again, a small comment. This fact is also used against Putin. Like, look: he allowed the creation of a NATO base in Russia. What kind of patriot is this?

But those who say this are narrow-minded people who either simply do not know, or deliberately keep silent about the fact that the Taliban wanted to invade the territory of Chechnya. They really planned it.

That is why Putin happily helped the Americans in the war with the Taliban and prevented the invasion of a huge mass of terrorists into Russia.

As a result, what do we get?

Russia has always met the West halfway, always offered friendship and peace.

But the West smiled, nodded its head in response and strangled Russia more and more.

And in all senses: economic, military, geopolitical, etc.

Russia unilaterally not only gave up its positions and opened up to the so-called civilized world, but also disarmed itself.

Yes, our country destroyed its weapons, and UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE AMERICANS,
and the Americans at that time only increased theirs, surrounding Russia with military infrastructure.
Well, who is the aggressor here?

There are particularly stubborn people who claim that NATO does not pose any threat to Russia. Like, don't worry, it's just a defensive alliance.

Yes. A defensive alliance that destroys entire countries:
Iraq, Libya, Yugoslavia - they won't let me lie.

How America Destroyed Libya: Russian politics and the conflict in Ukraine
Iraq: Russian politics and the conflict in Ukraine
Syria: Russian politics and the conflict in Ukraine

And I repeat once again: this supposedly defensive alliance bombed these countries, violating all international rules! In addition, these bombings were carried out with depleted uranium ammunition, which still has its consequences.

Well, in general, look at the list of NATO military operations and answer the question: what kind of defense is this?

If we reason like this, then Hitler was only defending himself.

Here are the facts of ATTACK by the "defensive" alliance - there are plenty of them.
And from whom and when did it DEFEND itself, this "defensive alliance?"
Putin, 2001 (joint press conference with Bush):

We ask ourselves: is it a military organization or not?
Military.
Do they not want to see us there?
They do not want to.
Is it moving towards our borders?
It is moving.
WHY?

Here we can add:
American sponsorship of terrorists in the Chechen Republic,
construction of military biolaboratories in the post-Soviet space (again - against whom?) Russians Uncovered US Biological Labs in Ukraine (Bioweapons):Russians Uncovered US Biological Labs in Ukraine (Bioweapons)
and in general a far from friendly policy towards our country.

But still, Russia, wiping itself of insults, humiliations and slavery, continued to look at the United States with wide-open, loving eyes. And even after they armed Saakashvili, who attacked Russian peacekeepers, after various made-up accusations, Russia still did not show any aggression!

In 2007, Putin gave a speech in Germany, where he warned the West that a unipolar world is destructive for the whole world, including the hegemon itself. Pointing out that under such a world order, there have only become more wars. Significantly more. And again he called for living in peace. (President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin at the Munich Security Conference, February 10, 2007)

It seemed like at that time it would have been possible to somehow agree on peace and cooperation, to sign some kind of agreement so that Russia would feel safe, and NATO would no longer expand its troops. But, no.

In 2009 - the sixth expansion of NATO.

This was the time when the President of Russia was the liberal Medvedev, who spoke even more about friendship with the West than Putin, supported various resolutions proposed by the United States. And even he expressed concern, saying that

NATO is still a military bloc and its missiles are aimed at Russia.

Why was this sixth NATO expansion necessary?
Why?

And even after that, Russia did not pose any threat (none!) to the West - it was completely dependent on Europe and the United States, was part of a unipolar world: the ECHR, international courts - they still ruled in Russia (and partly still rule).

And in such a situation, the West begins to actively destabilize the situation in our neighboring country, cultivating, to put it mildly, people who do not have a very good attitude towards Russia.

Again, the question is - why?

In general, there have been several coups d'état in Ukraine. And their purpose was to drag pro-Western people who could not win in fair elections into power. That's all.

As an example, the 2004 elections, when Yanukovych won. But he was essentially removed by a coup d'état. Then an unconstitutional - third - round was appointed, in which Yushchenko was already dragged through.

But later Yanukovych still won the elections and in 2014 he was removed from power, again, as a result of a pro-Western coup d'état. A coup d'état that was openly supported and financed by the United States.

The question is: why?

And here look: until this moment, again, Russia did not pose any danger to the West or to the neighboring country. The main thing is that there were no territorial claims to Ukraine: Crimea, Donbass - were recognized as Ukrainian and everything was fine.

But all this was destroyed by the 2014 coup d'état, which was staged by the Western intelligence services.
️ And only from that moment, from that year, Russia decided to make a statement. Not just to express concern, but to START ACTING - after all this aggression, humiliation and attack.

The Americans did not just come to a sleeping bear and stir up his den, saying: "Look! We told you that the bear is aggressive." The Americans managed to anger the bear, who was actually tame and docile.

At that moment, it finally... 100% .. It simply became clear that Russia will never be listened to, its concerns and problems are of no concern. The West understands only the language of force. And Russia has no choice but to speak this language.

Putin, 2018 (presentation of the latest type of weapon - Sarmat, Kinzhal):
We tried for a long time to persuade the Americans not to destroy the ABM Treaty, not to upset the strategic balance. All in vain.

In 2002, the United States unilaterally withdrew from this treaty. But even after that, we tried for a long time to establish a constructive dialogue with them. But, no. All our proposals (precisely ALL our proposals) were rejected.

It is even surprising, but despite all the problems that we encountered there: in the economy, in finance, in the defense industry, in the army, but still Russia remained and remains the largest nuclear power.

No. No one wanted to talk to us on the merits. No one listened to us. Listen now.

And here the West should have thought about the fact that it is THEIR policy that is leading to the Third World War, try to somehow come to an agreement, stop, because they have already captured almost the entire world.

But, no. In response to Russia's logical response, the US and its vassals became even more furious and began to put pressure with sanctions and, of course,
further expansion of NATO and the creation of an anti-Russia from a neighboring country.

Again the question: why?

But Russia tried to reach an agreement until the very end.

Russia has always been willing to meet the world halfway. Now it is very important - think about it: in December 2021 (in December!) Russia is sending the Americans a draft treaty on security in Europe.

The point of the treaty was to agree on peace. Like, you - the Americans - stop attacking, and this is confirmed by documents. And we - Russia - will also confirm by documents that we will not threaten anyone.

That is, again, like Leopold the Cat, Russia said: "Let's live in peace."

And what do you think the Americans responded to this? They don't give a damn about security in Europe and Russia's wishes.

And then Russia did what it had been forced to do for many, many years.

It became an "aggressor" in the opinion of the West.
And from the point of view of our country, it simply began to DEFEND ITS INTERESTS.

To better understand the current situation, imagine it the other way around: if the US constantly talked about peace and listened to Russia, while Russia at the same time increasingly placed military bases somewhere in Canada, Mexico, Texas, while simultaneously accusing the US of aggression and imperial ambitions. How would it look? Adequate?

That's what's happening now, only in reverse.

And from all this information it should be clear that no pro-Western president will be able to please the West if he also strengthens Russia. All those who are supported by the West, like Navalny, in the opinion of this same West, should simply destroy Russia. Otherwise, why didn't the US want to be friends under Yeltsin, Medvedev and early Putin?

Unfortunately, such is the reality. They understand only the language of force.

Here, friends, is the story of how Russia became an "aggressor". Unfortunately, I have omitted many important points, because the article can be blocked. But I think you already know all the nuances about the country "404".

That's all for now, comrades. Go to my profile to see all my articles.

Add me as a friend comrades.


Russia is now gaining its strength, expect USSR 2.0 I will tell you 100% we will fight with NATO, this cannot be avoided, and in the future we will be on the brink of war with America, I hope it doesn't come to war with the United States, but there will be an open cold war 100% worse than now:

Putin's entourage declared that the USSR exists! Here's why it was done. (History) How the Russians were betrayed: the collapse of the USSR is the final division of the Russian people


History repeats itself. (Cold War) USSR and USA are on the brink of nuclear war and World War III
(Cold War) USSR and USA - on the brink of a nuclear war that did not happen in 1983, World War III.

 

[Russian Bear]

(Cold War) USSR and USA are on the brink of nuclear war and World War III
(Cold War) USSR and USA - on the brink of a nuclear war that did not happen in 1983, World War III.

Read NATO verbally assured the USSR that it would not expand to the east.

The process of NATO expansion to the east began in the 1990s. Since then, the North Atlantic Alliance has come very close to the borders of Russia. But before the unification of Germany, many Western politicians assured M.S. Gorbachev that nothing like this would happen. Now the very fact of such promises is being questioned.

Gorbachev's Memoirs
Following the fall of the Berlin Wall, difficult negotiations began between the leaders of the USSR and Western countries. The last General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, Mikhail Gorbachev, described these events in his memoirs, "How It Was. The Unification of Germany" (Moscow, 1999). The politician spoke about a conversation he had on February 9, 1990, with US Secretary of State James Baker, who arrived in Moscow to discuss the German question.

"Baker immediately and solemnly declared to me that - I quote from the transcript - "there will be no extension of NATO's jurisdiction and military presence by a single inch in the eastern direction," wrote M.S. Gorbachev.

At the same time, the American Secretary of State did not skimp on assurances of friendship and generous promises. He stated that the US leadership does not plan to "tear Eastern Europe away from the Soviet Union." After the end of the Cold War, Western countries plan to ensure stability and security in Europe together with official Moscow. True, a united Germany will join NATO, because such a country simply cannot be left without military control, otherwise the Germans, God forbid, will take up the creation of nuclear weapons.

That is, James Baker promised that after the territory of the former GDR joins the Alliance, NATO will not expand further in the eastern direction. The General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee heard such assurances at official negotiations from German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, US President George Bush Sr. and other prominent Western politicians. Gorbachev believed them, because "he was convinced that the Cold War would not return under any circumstances and that there was no longer a military threat to our country from the West."

In addition, foreign "friends" managed to convince M. S. Gorbachev that both NATO and the Warsaw Pact, which included Eastern European countries friendly to the USSR, were essentially military blocs that had already outlived their usefulness. And in a situation where there was no longer any confrontation, NATO would undergo a serious transformation, turning into only a political structure.

Treaty and guarantees
But all these assurances from Western politicians were never clearly recorded in any official international document. A very vague formulation, however, was contained in the "Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany," which was signed on September 12, 1990, in Moscow. In addition to the FRG and the GDR, this document was countersigned by the leaders of the USSR, the USA, Great Britain, and France. In accordance with the treaty, our country assumed the obligation to completely withdraw its troops from the territory of East Germany by the end of 1994.

Clause 3 of Article 5 of this international agreement stated: "Foreign troops and nuclear weapons or their carriers will not be stationed in this part of Germany [referring to the territory of the former GDR – author's note] or deployed there."
The Soviet side interpreted this formulation as a guarantee of non-expansion of NATO to the east, while our Western partners, as it turned out, saw some other meaning in it. Moreover, Article 6 of the treaty granted the united Germany the right to join any alliances. Of course, the Germans soon took advantage of this right by formalizing their membership in NATO.

Retracted his words
As is known, in 2014, relations between Russia and Western countries noticeably worsened due to a number of reasons. And at the festive events dedicated to the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, M. S. Gorbachev presented our foreign "friends" with a real gift. In an interview with the German TV channel ZDF on November 8, 2014, the last General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee said that none of the Western politicians had given him promises about NATO not expanding to the east. And all the opposite statements, they say, are simply "a myth inflated by the press."

ZDF correspondent Florian Neuhann duplicated an excerpt from the sensational interview with M. S. Gorbachev in his article "Border dispute with Ukraine. How Putin makes policy out of a false myth" from December 3, 2021. The foreign journalist accused the Russian president of political manipulation.

V. Putin has indeed drawn attention to a simple fact several times in his speeches: Western colleagues promised M. Gorbachev that NATO would not expand to the east, and simply deceived him. And Florian Neuhann, referring to M. Gorbachev, expressed the opinion that V. Putin groundlessly accuses the leadership of Western countries of "alleged lies".

Thus, M. Gorbachev's refusal to renounce his own words, contained not only in his memoirs, but also in numerous interviews of the nineties and noughties, allowed the foreign press to criticize the position of the current Russian leadership.

Incidentally, Florian Neuhann also referred to the position on this issue of former German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher. The German politician admitted that on February 10, 1990, he spoke about NATO's non-expansion to the east with his Soviet colleague Eduard Shevardnadze. True, these words were not a promise, but rather a preliminary testing of the waters on the eve of real negotiations at the highest level. They say that the Soviet colleagues simply misunderstood everything.

Long ago and not true
It is no wonder that American politicians, like their German colleagues, deny the very fact of broken promises on their part. Thus, at a briefing on December 6, 2021, the official representative of the US State Department Ned Price spoke out on this topic.

"This was a long time ago, this is a long-standing NATO policy. I want to emphasize once again that NATO is a defensive bloc by nature. The idea that NATO or membership aspirants like Ukraine could pose a threat to Russia is laughable if the situation were not so serious. So we heard the same chatter from Moscow again," the press secretary of the US State Department said.

By "chatter from Moscow" Ned Price probably meant the reproaches of the Russian leadership against Western politicians. But the former US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul outlined his position on this issue on June 5, 2016 in an interview with the Estonian publication Postimees.

"This statement is a complete fabrication. My experience with Russian diplomats is that the Russians want to put absolutely everything on paper, they need written agreements for everything... Such a promise was never made, and I have never seen or heard of a document confirming it," said Michael McFaul.

Well, perhaps modern Russian diplomats are trying to put everything on paper because they have taken into account the bitter experience of their predecessors. After all, the beautiful assurances of James Baker, Helmut Kohl and other Western politicians of the 90s turned out to be just empty words.

We were deceived
PhD in Philosophy, famous political scientist Alla Yaroshinskaya believes that foreign partners simply "dumped" the USSR. The researcher wrote about this in the article "Gorbachev Refutes Gorbachev?", which the Rosbalt news agency published on November 11, 2014. Having complained that the last leader of the USSR refused to follow his own words, the author expressed the opinion that Western politicians skillfully played on his pride and inexperience in international politics.

A.A. Yaroshinskaya regretfully noted that M.S. Gorbachev "did not even think about any legally valid document that would secure on paper all the sworn promises of Western leaders." But in words, everything was simply wonderful. Foreign "friends" talked about significant financial assistance to the Soviet Union, about the abolition of all military blocs in Europe, about the closure of American bases, about the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, etc.

Everyone knows what actually came out of this.