Doesn't make any practical difference. Soviet "republics" were as independent as Reichskommissariat Niederlande. Internal borders were freely redrawn and native populations resettled to satisfy Soviet colonial policies. If you want to start settling old scores and reversing "historical injustices", you can demonstrate good faith by giving Estonia back the 5% of its territory that is still occupied by Russia. Not to mention China's grievances about "humiliations" and "injustices" regarding the Russian Far East.
Yes, it does. You are confusing 'Russian' and 'Soviet'.
"Soviet colonial policies"
That was funny. You are confusing with your colonial past.
"If you want to start settling old scores"
It's not about that. Russia was fine with the Crimea belonging to the Ukraine while it didn't matter much for Russia and for Crimeans themselves. That was until the nationalists took power in 2014 with the help of American 'midwifing' (quoting Obama here).
"you can demonstrate good faith"
USSR demonstrated good faith when it greenlighted reunification of Germany and got assurances that NATO won't expand to the east. Look how that worked out.
> USSR demonstrated good faith when it greenlighted reunification of Germany and got assurances that NATO won't expand to the east. Look how that worked out.
Of all the Russian propaganda you pick the one piece that was super easy to debunk, Gorbachev himself said this never happened.
The negotiations were always about NATO expanding into east Germany and not east in general.
NATO still isn’t in the former east Germany anyway.
I’m pretty sure I or others have told you this many times before though so I have to start questioning is you are posting in good faith or if your posting to push an agenda?.
"Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner" [0]
That isn't a counter to a primary source that says he never discussed it.
Although I do know that NATO Expansion is another historical grievance Russia has (getting lots of these aren't they) because Russia is very much pro being able to invade states, and NATO stops that.
These documents are primary sources. Gorbachev says contradictory things.
"Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, who participated in the 1990 negotiations, subsequently spoke out about the existence of a "guarantee of non-expansion of NATO to the east" inconsistently, confirming its existence in some interviews and refuting in others." [0]
Here is what Gorbachev was saying in 2008.
"Relations have further deteriorated after Nato promised eventual membership to Georgia and Ukraine, a move interpreted by Mr Gorbachev as an attempt to extend America's sphere of influence into Russia's backyard.
"The Americans promised that Nato wouldn't move beyond the boundaries of Germany after the Cold War but now half of central and eastern Europe are members, so what happened to their promises? It shows they cannot be trusted."" [1]
>> Yes, it does. You are confusing 'Russian' and 'Soviet'.
There is no practical difference between the two. All Soviet "republics" were run by Politburo in Moscow, the same way all orders in Nazi Germany came from Berlin, bypassing whatever formal structures existed. Both loved to micromanage. Whenever a local puppet didn't dance as Moscow expected, he was replaced. Leaders of "republics" couldn't even select deputies (second secretaries); they were assigned directly from Moscow to keep a close eye on formal heads of "republics".
If you want to play games, then sure, we can also say that Nazi Germany had nothing to do with Germans either. It was run by an Austrian painter who illegitimately seized power, and in its heyday, most people in the vast Nazi empire were not even ethnic Germans, so Germans had nothing to do with it all, naturally.
>> That was funny. You are confusing with your colonial past.
I have no colonial past.
>> It's not about that. Russia was fine with the Crimea belonging to the Ukraine while it didn't matter much for Russia and for Crimeans themselves. That was until the nationalists took power in 2014 with the help of American 'midwifing' (quoting Obama here).
Indeed, all was fine and dandy until Putin needed justifications for the invasion. Then it was suddenly discovered that a Soviet leader illegitimately "gifted" Crimea away. What's next, some error in the sale of Alaska too maybe? Can we please have it back, our emperor was too fond of America when he signed it?
>> USSR demonstrated good faith when it greenlighted reunification of Germany and got assurances that NATO won't expand to the east.
It's once again one of those things that was suddenly "discovered" to justify the invasion - but never brought up when Eastern Europe actually joined NATO two decades ago. On top of that, Gorbachev and Shevardnadze have explicitly denied this hoax, the only one claiming this was a street thug in St Petersburg at the time.
This talking point is irrelevant anyway, as NATO did not place any permanent ground forces in Eastern Europe until the invasion of Ukraine. And whatever was left in Western Europe after the Cold War saw a reduction by an order of a magnitude, skewing the balance of military power in Europe heavily in favor of Russia.
"There is no practical difference between the two."
Soviet leadership acted in the interests of the Soviet Union (and their own), not in the interests of RSFSR.
"we can also say that Nazi Germany had nothing to do with Germans either"
No, you can't. Nazi Germany proclaimed the superiority of Germans (and of so called 'Arian race') and tried to achieve ethnic purity. Soviet Union was a multiethnic state, ethnic Russians constituted about half of Soviet population and the idea of the 'friendship of ethnicities' was heavily promoted.
"I have no colonial past."
But your country does.
"Then it was suddenly discovered"
Again, that's not how it was. Some people in Russia remembered it pretty well, like Moscow major Luzhkov who was helping Sevastopol with money, but all the presidents and governments consistently refused to support this idea.
"It's once again one of those things that was suddenly "discovered" to justify the invasion"
"Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner" [0]
"but never brought up"
What's the point to complain and to be told to know your place?
Anyway, ever heard of Putin's Munich speech in 2006?
"skewing the balance of military power in Europe heavily in favor of Russia"
