Mediaboss Marketing

Reuters Videos

Why is Russia's Putin so focused on Ukraine?Ukraine has become the main flashpoint in Russia's relations with the West after a series of tough statements from President Vladimir Putinand a build-up of tens of thousands of Russian troops near its border.U.S. DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE WENDY SHERMAN SAYING:"If Russia further invades Ukraine, there will be significant costs and consequences.U.S. PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN , SAYING:"I think what you're going to see is that Russia will be held accountable if it invades."NATO SECRETARY GENERAL, JENS STOLTENBERG, SAYING:"The risk of a conflict is real."WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY JEN PSAKI SAYING:"This is an extremely dangerous situation. We're now at a stage where Russia could at any point launch an attack in Ukraine."Here are three reasons why Putin feels so strongly about Ukraineand has chosen to bring the crisis to a head.1. HISTORYWith the 1991 break-up of the Soviet Union,Russia lost control of 14 former republics it had previously dominated,but the loss of Ukraine was the bitterest pill.Many Russians feel a connection with Ukraine that they do not feel towards other former Soviet statesThe two had been linked since the 9th centuryand speak closely related languagesPutin has said Russians and Ukrainians were one peoplewho shared a single historic and spiritual space2. GEOPOLITICSSince the Cold War ended NATO has expanded eastwardsby taking in 14 new countries, including states that were once in the Soviet Union.For Russia - this was a threatening encroachment towards its borders. RUSSIAN PRESIDENT, VLADIMIR PUTIN, SAYING:"The build-up of the United States and NATO's forces next to the Russian borders is of great concern."While Ukraine is not a NATO memberit has a promise it will eventually get to join.Since toppling a pro-Russian president in 2014, it has moved closer to the West,and staged joint military exercises with NATO.Putin says Ukraine's growing ties with the alliance could make it a launchpad for NATO missiles targeted at Russia. He wants security guarantees from the West including the rescinding of NATO's membership promise to Kyiv. 3. PUTIN'S MINDSET AND MOTIVESAs a leader who tolerates virtually no domestic opposition,Putin has a strong aversion to revolutions in neighbouring countries that could encourage protests in Russia. Ukraine is potentially threatening for Putin if it inspires Russians with a pro-Western vision.Keeping the West guessing about a possible invasion of Ukraine has put Russia high on the international agenda and forced U.S. President Joe Biden to re-engage with Putin in a video call in December. In a recent interview Putin mourned the collapse of the Soviet Union as the demise of historical Russia. Some analysts argue such statements suggest Putin sees Ukraine as unfinished businessand wants to follow the seizure of Crimea - which boosted his popularity in Russia to bring part or all of Ukraine back under Moscow's control.

Originally posted here:
Ukraine: Donetsk residents have their say on US-Russia talks

Russia has stationed about 100,000 troops near its border with Ukraine. Vladimir Putins government has issued a list of demands that Western powers are highly unlikely to meet. And President Biden said yesterday that he expected Putin to send troops over the border. But I think he will pay a serious and dear price for it, Biden added.

Todays newsletter offers a Q. and A. on the risks of war in Eastern Europe.

The overall threatening rhetoric from the Kremlin and the movement that military analysts are seeing on the ground give us a lot of ground for concern, Anton Troianovski, The Timess Moscow bureau chief, told my colleague Claire Moses. Its a very serious situation.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Russias foreign minister are scheduled to meet for talks tomorrow in Geneva.

1. Why is Putin threatening war with Ukraine?

The honest answer is that most diplomats and experts arent entirely sure. Its not clear what Russias central demand is, Blinken told reporters yesterday in Kyiv, Ukraines capital.

Even Putins top advisers may not know what he is trying to accomplish and how seriously he is considering an invasion, as Anton has written. The expert opinion that I can authoritatively declare is: Who the heck knows? said Fyodor Lukyanov, a Russian foreign-policy analyst who advises the Kremlin.

This murkiness allows Putin to declare the confrontation a success in multiple scenarios.

2. Why is the U.S. so alarmed?

A successful invasion would establish Russia as a dominant, expansionist power in Eastern Europe. It would make other democracies (like Taiwan) worry that they could be vulnerable to takeover by nearby authoritarian countries (like China).

3. What does Putin say his rationale is?

Perhaps the best-known statement of Putins 20-plus years as Russias dominant political figure came from an annual state-of-the-nation speech in 2005 at the Kremlin. The collapse of the Soviet Union, he said, was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century.

Ukraine was arguably the most painful loss for Moscow. It was the most populous former Soviet republic to form its own country apart from Russia. The two now share a 1,200-mile border, and Putin often cites their deep cultural ties.

But Ukraine has drifted toward the West in recent years. The U.S. and its allies have increased military aid to Ukraine and also said albeit vaguely that Ukraine will one day join NATO.

Putin has defended the troop buildup by saying it is merely a military exercise. Russia has also released its list of demands, including a NATO pledge never to admit Ukraine and a pullback of NATO troops in Eastern Europe (effectively to where they were in the late 1990s).

Biden, responding to a question from The Timess David Sanger at a news conference yesterday, said Ukraine was unlikely to join NATO in the near term. But Biden ruled out the idea of removing NATO troops from Eastern Europe.

4. What isnt Putin saying?

Some observers believe that the troop buildup is a mixture of bluff and distraction.

A group of Russia experts including Frederick Kagan, who has advised U.S. military leaders in the past made this argument in a recent report called Strategic Misdirection. A full-scale invasion of Ukraine could be bloody and expensive, they wrote, potentially damaging Russias economy and Putins political standing.

As Kori Schake explained in The Atlantic: Half a million Ukrainians have military experience; 24 percent of respondents in one recent poll said that they would resist Russian occupation with a weapon in hand. Russia might succeed in taking Ukraine, but it is unlikely to hold it.

Another reason to be skeptical of invasion: So far, Putin does not appear to be preparing Russians to go to war. Russias deputy foreign minister continued this pattern yesterday, saying, We will not attack, strike, invade, quote unquote, whatever, Ukraine.

Putin may instead be trying to redefine what the West considers unacceptable behavior, Kagan and his co-authors argued. By making an invasion seem possible, Putin can try to win other concessions, such as a freer hand in Eastern Europe.

In the worst-case version of this scenario, the West will be congratulating itself for having avoided a Russian invasion Putin never meant to launch while Putin quietly celebrates an important nonmilitary victory that the West does not even recognize, Kagan and his colleagues wrote.

(Thomas Friedman, the Times Opinion columnist, argues that the threat of war also helps distract Russians from their economic problems.)

5. So the risk of war is low?

Not necessarily. Even skeptics like Kagan acknowledge it is possible, given the lack of transparency about Putins thinking.

A few analysts, like Melinda Haring of the Atlantic Council, believe war is the most likely outcome: Putin has lost patience with Ukraine, she has written, and believes the U.S. would not go to war over it. (Biden said yesterday that a minor incursion would not necessarily pull the U.S. into the fight.) Putin also craves a historical legacy that a territorial expansion could ensure, by helping reverse the catastrophe of the Soviet collapse.

Its very hard to gauge the probability, Michael Crowley, a Times reporter who is covering Blinkens European trip, told me from Kyiv yesterday. This is going to require very creative diplomacy to resolve, if it can be resolved.

Today marks one year since Biden took office. Times Opinion asked 14 independent voters to rate his performance.

The world must strengthen its capacity to identify new Covid variants before the next one, John Nkengasong argues.

Amanda Gorman writes that were still climbing the hill that her inaugural poem described.

The illiberal left is real. But the illiberal right is the bigger threat, Jonathan Rauch and Peter Wehner say.

Andr Leon Talleys approach to fashion could best be described as more. More glamour, more decadence, more delight. He evoked drama in both his personal style wearing capes and furs and his declarations. Its a famine of beauty, honey! he once proclaimed. My eyes are starving for beauty!

Talley, who died this week at 73, was a pioneering figure in fashion. Using his encyclopedic knowledge of fashion history and his quick wit, he became an editor, author, adviser and TV personality. In the 1980s, he worked his way up to creative director at Vogue, and he spent decades there in various roles.

A 1994 New Yorker profile called Talley The Only One a reference to him often being the sole high-powered Black editor in a field that is notoriously white. His influence is hard to overstate: He mentored the supermodel Naomi Campbell and helped dress Michelle Obama as first lady.

Growing up in the Jim Crow South, Talley wallpapered his bedroom with images ripped from Vogue. I went to school and to church and I did what I was told and I didnt talk much, he told Vogue in 2018. But I knew life was bigger than that. I wanted to meet Diana Vreeland and Andy Warhol and Naomi Sims and Pat Cleveland and Edie Sedgwick and Loulou de la Falaise. And I did. And I never looked back. Sanam Yar, a Morning writer

Continue reading here:
Russia and Ukraine, Explained - The New York Times

Ahead of a key meeting on Friday between the U.S. and Russia, the Biden administration on Thursday pushed a full-scale campaign to pressure Moscow as Russian leader Vladimir Putin weighs a possible attack on its neighbor Ukraine.

The U.S. approved its NATO allies in the Baltics to provide additional arms to Ukraine, including critical anti-aircraft missiles that escalate U.S. support. The U.S. Treasury sanctioned four Ukrainian officials it accused of working with Russian intelligence, including to form a new government backed by Russian occupying forces. The State Department blasted a Russian disinformation campaign it said was part of its "pretext" to invade Ukraine and "divide the international reaction to its actions."

One day before his sit-down with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Secretary of State Antony Blinken tried to push back on Russia's narrative and make clear just how high the stakes are in the standoff.

"It's bigger than a conflict between two countries. It's bigger than Russia and NATO. It's a crisis with global consequences, and it requires global attention and action," the top U.S. diplomat said in Berlin, hours after meeting his German, French, and British counterparts to coordinate a response.

That coordination has had tremendous doubt cast on it after President Joe Biden said Wednesday that the NATO alliance was not united about how to respond to aggression from Russia that fell short of an all-out attack on Ukraine -- an uncomfortable truth that U.S. and NATO officials have tried to paper over for weeks.

A convoy of Russian armored vehicles moves along a highway in Crimea, Jan. 18, 2022.

After the White House scrambled to clean that up, Biden himself clarified on Thursday, "If any -- any -- assembled Russian units move across the Ukrainian border, that is an invasion. But -- and it will be met with severe and coordinated economic response that I've discussed in detail with our allies."

But the challenge remains of what the U.S. and its allies will do if Russia attacks Ukraine with the same gray-zone tactics it has used for the last eight years, as it annexed Crimea, launched a war in eastern Ukraine, and began a slow-motion annexation of those provinces.

That war, which has killed approximately 14,000 people, rages on in fits and starts on the frontlines -- and in cyberspace. Ukrainian government websites were hacked in ""the largest cyberattack on Ukraine in the last four years," a Ukrainian cyber official said Wednesday, and Moscow has launched a "disinformation storm" portraying Ukraine as the aggressor and trying to "build public support for a further Russian invasion," a senior State Department official said Thursday.

The Kremlin's campaign to destabilize its smaller, democratic neighbor allegedly includes spies on the ground, collecting information and even plotting to form a new Ukrainian government.

"Russia has directed its intelligence services to recruit current and former Ukrainian government officials to prepare to take over the government of Ukraine and to control Ukraines critical infrastructure with an occupying Russian force," the U.S. Treasury said in a statement.

The U.S. has sanctioned two sitting members of Ukrainian parliament, Taras Kozak and Oleh Voloshyn, who it accused of furthering a plot by the FSB, Russia's main security agency and the successor of the KGB. The agency, which Biden said Wednesday has forces on the ground in Ukraine, is "destabilizing the political situation in Ukraine and laying the groundwork for creating a new, Russian-controlled government in Ukraine," Treasury added.

German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock (background, C) opens a meeting with Secretary of State Antony Blinken (R), Britain's Minister of State for Middle East, North Africa and North America James Cleverly (foreground R) and French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian (L) at the German Foreign Office in Berlin, Jan. 20, 2022.

In the face of that effort, the U.S. is hoping that transparency can undercut any pretext Russian operatives or their Ukrainian colleagues may create -- just as the White House last week accused the Kremlin of positioning operatives trained in urban warfare and explosives and planning a possible "false-flag" operation.

Russia has denied that, calling it "complete disinformation." It has said repeatedly it does not plan to attack the former Soviet state, even as Putin warned that his demands, including barring Ukraine from joining NATO, be met or Russia will take "military technical" measures.

The U.S. is taking its own military measures, approving the transfer of more weaponry to Ukraine -- this time from Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia, a State Department spokesperson confirmed, while declining to say what weapons exactly.

But a Lithuanian Ministry of Defense source told ABC News the country was given the green light to transfer to Ukraine Javelin anti-tank missiles and Stinger portable surface-to-air missiles. The Baltic state wanted to send the weapons even earlier, but because they were originally U.S. provided, it needed American approval, which only came during consultations Wednesday, the source said.

Stingers are a kind of man-portable air-defense system, or MANPAD, where an individual soldier can carry the weapon and use it to down fighter aircraft. Javelins, which the Trump administration provided after the Obama administration had refused, have become an important weapon for Ukraine to pierce Russian-made tanks, which could come rolling across the border in an invasion .

Ukraine's military capacity still pales in comparison to Russia's overwhelming military superiority, and it's unclear how many missiles are being provided. Lithuania has only 54 of the missiles in its inventory and only eight launchers from which to fire them from, meaning the amount provided to Ukraine will likely be even lower.

Still, Stingers in particular represent a symbolic threshold that previous administrations had not crossed. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., who was in Kyiv earlier this week as part of a bipartisan congressional delegation, warned Thursday that in this "very fragile time... it would not be helpful to give Putin an excuse to invade Ukraine, so I think we've got to be very thoughtful about how we address some of these issues like a missile system."

Russia has already warned that it sees any Western weapons provided to Ukraine as a threat, especially after the U.S. announced $200 million in new military aid ($650 million total over the last year) and the United Kingdom announced it provided anti-tank missiles.

German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock (background, C) opens a meeting with Secretary of State Antony Blinken (R), Britain's Minister of State for Middle East, North Africa and North America James Cleverly (foreground R) and French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian (L) at the German Foreign Office in Berlin, Jan. 20, 2022.

Russia, however, has warned that it sees any Western weapons provided to Ukraine as a threat.

"We underline the necessity of ceasing boosting the war-like Ukrainian regime with arms deliveries ... and a lot else that represents a direct threat for us," Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said Wednesday.

But Blinken pushed back on that Thursday in a major speech, disputing the Russian narrative and making clear Moscow is the aggressor.

"On its face, thats absurd. NATO didn't invade Georgia, NATO didn't invade Ukraine - Russia did," he said, adding NATO neighbors account for six percent of Russia's borders and have 5,000 allied troops in those countries, while Russia has massed 20 times that around Ukraine.

There has been tense speculation about whether Putin will attack Ukraine, with Biden saying Wednesday he believes the strongman leader will "move in." But Blinken said Thursday the U.S. still believes he has not made up his mind yet, but added his animus towards Ukraine has long been known.

"He's told us repeatedly - he's laying the groundwork for an invasion because he doesn't believe that Ukraine is a sovereign nation," Blinken said.

In this image taken from footage provided by the Ukrainian Defense Ministry Press Service, a Ukrainian soldiers use a launcher with US Javelin missiles during military exercises in Donetsk region, Ukraine, Jan. 12, 2022.

That argument has been a key part of Russia's disinformation ecosystem, which has been in overdrive in recent weeks, according to senior State Department officials.

Russia's military and intelligence entities have deployed 3,500 posts per day in December -- an increase of 200 percent from November -- as they seek to "create conditions conducive to success of attempted aggression in Ukraine and elsewhere and to divide the international reaction to its actions," a senior State Department official told reporters.

"These are not just public statements from Russia's MFA accounts ... These are broader campaigns using shell companies, false names, and layers to conceal the real backers and their intentions," a second senior State Department official said, calling it "a war on truth."

Russia must pull back its propaganda campaign in addition to its troops on Ukraine's borders, the official added, echoing previous U.S. calls for de-escalation to give diplomacy a shot.

Whether or not diplomacy has a shot will be tested again Friday in Geneva, where Blinken and Lavrov will meet. A senior State Department official said earlier in the week that the meeting itself is a sign the door to diplomacy remains open, but the two sides continue to talk past each other.

The two diplomats will "discuss draft agreements on security guarantees," Russia's embassy in Washington tweeted Thursday - a reference to its demands that NATO bar Ukraine from joining and pull back forces from Eastern European member states. But U.S. officials have repeatedly called those "nonstarters," and Blinken said Wednesday in Kyiv he would not be "presenting a paper" to Lavrov in response.

That has raised fears that Moscow is simply using diplomatic talks to see them fail - yet another pretext before an attack. But regardless of whether there's a full-born assault, Russia has now effectively shaken Ukraine once again. Its president Volodymyr Zelenskyy tried to reassure the nation late Wednesday, even pushing back on the U.S. warnings that the threat is more urgent.

"These risks have been there for more than one day, and they haven't grown nowadays - there is just more buzz around them," he said in a televised address.

ABC's Dada Jovanovic contributed to this report from Belgrade, Serbia, Patrick Reevell from Kyiv, Ukraine, and Luis Martinez from the Pentagon.

Read the rest here:
US escalates pressure on Russia, approving new arms and accusing it of plot against Ukraine - ABC News

Both Russian and American officials sounded a pessimistic note after three rounds of talks last week, with one Russian diplomat saying that talks with the West were approaching a dead end, and Mr. Blinken offered little reason for optimism.

Mr. Blinken said the United States did not make any formal proposals last week but merely talked about areas for reciprocal cooperation, including arms control and the conduct of military exercises in Europe.

He said it was unclear whether Russia was prepared to negotiate in good faith on those fronts, or at all.

Russia has positioned around 100,000 troops along its western border with Ukraine, although precise estimates vary. On Tuesday, the White House press secretary, Jen Psaki, said that Russia could at any point launch an attack in Ukraine.

In a news conference on Wednesday, President Biden echoed that message, saying he expected Mr. Putin to invade. Do I think hell test the West, test the United States and NATO, as significantly as he can? Yes, I think he will, Mr. Biden told reporters, adding: But I think he will pay a serious and dear price for it that he doesnt think now will cost him what its going to cost him. And I think he will regret having done it.

Speaking at a forum in Moscow earlier on Wednesday, Russias deputy foreign minister, Sergei A. Ryabkov, repeated his governments previous denial that Moscow has any plans to move its forces into Ukraine.

We will not attack, strike, invade, quote unquote, whatever, Ukraine, Mr. Ryabkov said. He said the Russian troops near Ukraines border were conducting training exercises.

Read more here:
As U.S. and Russia Prepare to Talk, Blinken Presents Hard Line - The New York Times

Introduction

Tensions between Russia and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) have reached the point of crisis. The government of Russian President Vladimir Putin is threatening a wider military incursion into Ukraine unless the U.S.-led alliance makes several major security concessions, including a commitment to cease expanding eastward.

More From Our Experts

Russia says that the United States and NATO have continually violated pledges allegedly made in the early 1990s that the alliance would not expand into the former Soviet bloc. Meanwhile, alliance leaders have said they are open to new diplomacy with Russia on arms control and other matters but that they are unwilling to discuss forever shutting NATOs doors to new members.

More on:

NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization)

Russia

Ukraine

Military Operations

Wars and Conflict

Russian leaders have long been wary of the eastward expansion of NATO, particularly as the alliance opened its doors to former Warsaw Pact states and ex-Soviet republics in the late 1990s (the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland) and early 2000s (Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia). Their fears grew in the late 2000s as the alliance stated its intent to admit Georgia and Ukraine at an unspecified point in the future.

Daily News Brief

A summary of global news developments with CFR analysis delivered to your inbox each morning.Most weekdays.

A weekly digest of the latestfrom CFR on the biggest foreign policy stories of the week, featuring briefs, opinions, and explainers. Every Friday.

A curation of original analyses, data visualizations, and commentaries, examining the debates and efforts to improve health worldwide.Weekly.

For the Kremlin, the notion that Ukraine, a pillar of the Soviet Union with strong historic ties to Russia, would join NATO was a red line. No Russian leader could stand idly by in the face of steps toward NATO membership for Ukraine. That would be a hostile act toward Russia, Putin warned U.S. Undersecretary for Political Affairs William J. Burns, who is now director of the CIA, in the weeks leading up to NATOs 2008 Bucharest Summit.

Although NATO did not announce a formal membership plan for Ukraine and Georgia at the Bucharest Summit, the alliance did affirm that these countries will become members of NATO, and it extended formal invitations to accession talks to Albania and Croatia, which became members in 2009. NATO expanded again in 2017, admitting Montenegro, and in 2020, welcoming North Macedonia.

More From Our Experts

Russian officials say that the U.S. government made a pledge to Soviet leaders not to expand the alliances eastern borders, a commitment they say came during the flurry of diplomacy following the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and surrounding the reunification of Germany in 1990. Proponents of this narrative often cite the words that U.S. Secretary of State James A. Baker said to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in February 1990, that there would be no extension of NATOs jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east. They say the United States and NATO have repeatedly betrayed this verbal commitment in the decades since, taking advantage of Russias tumultuous post-Soviet period and expanding the Western alliance several times, all the way to Russias doorstep in the case of the Baltic states.

However, many Western analysts and former U.S. officials involved in these discussions dispute what they say is a selective view of history. They point out that, in early 1990, the focus of the diplomacy between the so-called Two Plus Four (East and West Germany plus the United States, France, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom) was the future of Germany and the question of whether the soon-to-be unified country would be part of NATO. (West Germany was already an alliance member, while East Germany was part of the Soviet-aligned Warsaw Pact.) They say that the discussions were not about NATOs long-term plans for eastward expansion, which would have made little sense at that time; the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union still existed, and there was scant indication they would dissolve as quickly as they did, in a matter of months. In a 2014 interview, Gorbachev said as much: The topic of NATO expansion was never discussed. It was not raised in those years.

More on:

NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization)

Russia

Ukraine

Military Operations

Wars and Conflict

The diplomacy between U.S. and Soviet leaders during this period focused on Germany and included discussions of various post-unification security options, including the potential for Germany to become part of both NATO and the Warsaw Pact, for Germany to be nonaligned, and even for the Soviet Union to join NATO. Early in the talks, Soviet leaders insisted that a unified Germany never become part of NATO, though they eventually accepted Germanys right to decide for itself. Similarly, the United States stepped back from Bakers initial language on not expanding NATOs jurisdiction, which he reportedly used only in the discussion about whether NATO troops would be based in what was then East Germany. In the end, the treaty recognizing German unification that the Two Plus Four powers signed in the summer of 1990 stipulated that only German territorial (non-NATO) forces could be based in East Germany while Soviet forces withdrew. After that, only German forces assigned to NATO could be based there, not foreign NATO forces. The treaty doesnt mention NATOs rights and commitments beyond Germany.

Some experts point to another pivotal moment to help explain the mistrust between Russia and NATO today: the 199394 discussions between the Bill Clinton administration and the Russian government led by Boris Yeltsin.

By this point, the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union had collapsed, and the Clinton administration was seeking to craft a new security architecture in Europe that would help foster and fortify the continents fledging, post-Soviet democracies, including Russia. Some in the Clinton government, as well as Central European countries such as the Czech Republic and Poland, wanted to move quickly and start expanding NATOs membership eastward. However, most Clinton officials reportedly did not, being wary that expansion would rankle Russian leaders at a fragile, transitional moment and detract from other U.S. foreign policy objectives, such as nuclear arms control.

Instead, Clinton chose to develop a new NATO initiative called the Partnership for Peace (PfP), which would be nonexclusive and open to all former Warsaw Pact members, as well as non-European countries. Seeing this non-membership framework as a compromise of sorts, in October 1993, U.S. diplomats proposed it to Yeltsin, who eagerly accepted. (Just days before, Yeltsin, with the Russian militarys support, forcefully put down an attempt by parliament to oust him.) NATO launched PfP at its annual summit in January 1994, and more than two dozen countries, including Georgia, Russia, and Ukraine, joined in the following months.

However, Clinton soon began speaking publicly [PDF] about expanding NATOs membership, saying in Prague just days after the launch of PfP that the question is no longer whether NATO will take on new members but when and how. Yeltsin warned Western leaders at a conference in December of that year that Europe, even before it has managed to shrug off the legacy of the Cold War, is risking encumbering itself with a cold peace.

Clinton subsequently made efforts to allay Yeltsins concerns: pushing off enlargement until after the Russian leader was reelected in 1996, inviting Russia to join the Group of Seven, and establishing a formal, non-adversarial forum for Russia-NATO diplomacy. But analysts say that NATOs expansion in the ensuing years would leave deep scars on the Russian psyche. For many Russians, most importantly Vladimir Putin, the 1990s were a decade of humiliation, as the United States imposed its vision of order on Europe (including in Kosovo in 1999) while the Russians could do nothing but stand by and watch, James Goldgeier, an expert on NATO-Russia relations, wrote for War on the Rocks.

The Russian government, led by Putin, continued to be wary of NATO expansion in the 2000s. Putin expressed doubts that the alliance, which grew its fastest in 2004, would be effective in tackling the security challenges of the day, including international terrorism and the conflict in Afghanistan. Many new members, particularly the Baltic countries, saw NATO membership as a shield against their former Soviet rulers.

In the years that followed, Putin grew increasingly outspoken in his displeasure at NATOs inroads into Eastern Europe, saying at a high-profile speech in Munich in 2007 that it is obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation with themodernization ofthealliance itself orwith ensuring security inEurope. Onthecontrary, it represents aserious provocation that reduces thelevel ofmutual trust. In the summer following NATOs 2008 Bucharest Summit, where NATO stated its intent to admit Georgia and Ukraine, Russia invaded the former. Six years later, as Kyiv stepped closer to an economic partnership with another Western bloc, the European Union, Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea.

Russia has put forth two draft agreements that seek explicit, legally binding security guarantees from the United States and NATO, respectively:

Treaty with the United States. The draft treaty contains eight articles, some of which call for tight restrictions on U.S. and NATO political and military activities.

Agreement with NATO. The draft agreement has nine articles, including several that call for dramatic military concessions from the transatlantic alliance.

Many Western analysts and officials have said that several of Russias demands, such the ban on future NATO enlargement, are effectively nonstarters and that the Kremlin has proposed them in bad faith. Some fear Moscows demands are deliberately excessive, intended to be dismissed by Western powers and serve as a pretext for Russia to escalate its military activity in Ukraine, potentially by a broad invasion.

The United States and NATOhave said they remain committedto restoring Ukraines territorial integrity and sovereignty. They do not recognize Russias claims to Crimea, and have encouraged Russia and Ukraine to resolve the conflict in the countrys eastern Donbas region viathe Minsk agreements[PDF]. Signed in 2014 and 2015 and brokered by France and Germany, these accords call for a cease-fire, a withdrawal of heavy weapons, Ukraines control over its border with Russia, and local elections and a special political status for certain areas of the region.

Meanwhile, Kyiv has affirmed its goal of eventually gaining NATO membership, and it holds yearly military exercises with the alliance, including the Sea Breeze and Rapid Trident drills. The U.S. military has provided Ukrainian forces with training and equipment, including sniper rifles, grenade launchers, night-vision gear, radars, Javelin anti-tank missiles, and patrol vessels. In 2020, Ukraine became one of just six so-called enhanced opportunity partners, a special status given to NATOs closet allies, such as Australia.

Read the rest here:
Why NATO Has Become a Flash Point With Russia in Ukraine - Council on Foreign Relations