World press on relations between Russia and the West (September 4-8, 2014)"NATO Too Wary of Russian Threats to Let Ukraine Join" is an article which appeared in the Time on September 4. The author of the article, Simon Shuster writes that as a result of Putin's actions towards Ukraine, "the most recent nationwide survey taken in July suggested that, for the first time in their post-Soviet history, a plurality of Ukrainians—44%—would favor joining the alliance that Russia sees as a strategic threat. When the Rating Group, a Ukrainian pollster, conducted the same survey in 2012, they found only 19% of respondents in favor of NATO accession.""If Ukraine were to join NATO, every one of its members would be treaty-bound to defend Ukraine’s in case of a foreign attack, and none of the allies have been willing to risk that kind of confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia. Grechaninov [a retired major general of the Soviet army] understands these fears, but he warns that the alliance is only delaying the inevitable. 'Putin can only be stopped by a force greater than his,' he says. 'We waited for this force from NATO, and they have it. They can stop Putin. But right now they don’t consider it,' he says, pausing to find the right word. 'They don’t consider it expedient'," the article concludes.Among the most interesting articles of the past days is an article which appeared in the Spectator entitled "Revealed: the Kremlin files which prove that Nato never betrayed Russia.""Putin’s case against Nato is that it has deceived Mikhail Gorbachev. Gorbachev says he agreed to withdraw from Soviet central Europe only after being promised that ‘Nato would not move a centimetre to the east’. This claim would seem to be corroborated by the handwritten notes of James Baker, the former US Secretary of State. ‘Nato — whose juris. would not move eastward,’ he scribbled during a conversation with Gorbachev in 1990. He then wrote to Helmut Kohl, Chancellor of Germany, that he had offered the Soviets ‘assurances that Nato’s jurisdiction would not shift one inch eastward from its present position’. Since then, however, as many as ten eastern European countries have joined Nato, and Ukraine seems to be next in line. So Moscow seeks to justify the invasion as no more than a defensive move, taken in response to Nato’s treachery and expansionism," the article reads. "The records show no trace of a promise that Nato would not expand. It’s quite clear that Nato expansion was already on the cards: indeed, Gorbachev was talking about joining the alliance. No promise was broken because none was made. And if the idea of a broken promise is being used as casus belli in Ukraine, it is being used fraudulently," the author of the article writes, claiming that he has himself copied the aforementioned notes. "Russia should reveal more about a possible missile treaty violation" is an article written by the editorial board of the Washington Post and was published on September 7. " Russia should be transparent and reveal what was tested and why, and the United States ought to say publicly what is behind the charge of a violation. Russia has long chafed at the treaty, but this is no time for either side to abandon it. If there is a violation, then it should be dealt with straightforwardly. What is often forgotten about the Cold War arms race is that it was not only a competition for bigger and more destructive weapons. It was also a contest of mistrust, misperception and deception. At times, such as the Cuban missile crisis and a war scare in the autumn of 1983, the mistrust may have been more dangerous than anything else. The Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was a worthy attempt to reverse this mind-set and eliminate the missiles. If there are loose bolts or squeaky joints in the treaty after a generation, the right course of action is to address them squarely, and openly, rather than revert to mistrust and deception. There is enough of that already from Russia’s misadventure in Ukraine," the article reads.
"NATO Too Wary of Russian Threats to Let Ukraine Join" is an article which appeared in the Time on September 4.
The author of the article, Simon Shuster writes that as a result of Putin's actions towards Ukraine, "the most recent nationwide survey taken in July suggested that, for the first time in their post-Soviet history, a plurality of Ukrainians—44%—would favor joining the alliance that Russia sees as a strategic threat. When the Rating Group, a Ukrainian pollster, conducted the same survey in 2012, they found only 19% of respondents in favor of NATO accession."
"If Ukraine were to join NATO, every one of its members would be treaty-bound to defend Ukraine’s in case of a foreign attack, and none of the allies have been willing to risk that kind of confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia. Grechaninov [a retired major general of the Soviet army] understands these fears, but he warns that the alliance is only delaying the inevitable. 'Putin can only be stopped by a force greater than his,' he says. 'We waited for this force from NATO, and they have it. They can stop Putin. But right now they don’t consider it,' he says, pausing to find the right word. 'They don’t consider it expedient'," the article concludes.
Among the most interesting articles of the past days is an article which appeared in the Spectator entitled "Revealed: the Kremlin files which prove that Nato never betrayed Russia."
"Putin’s case against Nato is that it has deceived Mikhail Gorbachev. Gorbachev says he agreed to withdraw from Soviet central Europe only after being promised that ‘Nato would not move a centimetre to the east’. This claim would seem to be corroborated by the handwritten notes of James Baker, the former US Secretary of State. ‘Nato — whose juris. would not move eastward,’ he scribbled during a conversation with Gorbachev in 1990. He then wrote to Helmut Kohl, Chancellor of Germany, that he had offered the Soviets ‘assurances that Nato’s jurisdiction would not shift one inch eastward from its present position’. Since then, however, as many as ten eastern European countries have joined Nato, and Ukraine seems to be next in line. So Moscow seeks to justify the invasion as no more than a defensive move, taken in response to Nato’s treachery and expansionism," the article reads.
"The records show no trace of a promise that Nato would not expand. It’s quite clear that Nato expansion was already on the cards: indeed, Gorbachev was talking about joining the alliance. No promise was broken because none was made. And if the idea of a broken promise is being used as casus belli in Ukraine, it is being used fraudulently," the author of the article writes, claiming that he has himself copied the aforementioned notes.
"Russia should reveal more about a possible missile treaty violation" is an article written by the editorial board of the Washington Post and was published on September 7.
" Russia should be transparent and reveal what was tested and why, and the United States ought to say publicly what is behind the charge of a violation. Russia has long chafed at the treaty, but this is no time for either side to abandon it. If there is a violation, then it should be dealt with straightforwardly. What is often forgotten about the Cold War arms race is that it was not only a competition for bigger and more destructive weapons. It was also a contest of mistrust, misperception and deception. At times, such as the Cuban missile crisis and a war scare in the autumn of 1983, the mistrust may have been more dangerous than anything else. The Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was a worthy attempt to reverse this mind-set and eliminate the missiles. If there are loose bolts or squeaky joints in the treaty after a generation, the right course of action is to address them squarely, and openly, rather than revert to mistrust and deception. There is enough of that already from Russia’s misadventure in Ukraine," the article reads.
