Thread by @andreivkozyrev

Concerning developments today. Recent history can teach some lessons.

Recently declassified US national security docs vis-a-vis NATO expansion corroborate the story of damaging US diplomatic moves in early 1990s.
nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/…

President Clinton wonders “whether or not we should try to be more frank with the Russians” about U.S. vision on NATO expansion. Disguised American posture helped Russian hardliners to recreate a hostile view of NATO, still exploited today.

Even before the formal end of the Soviet Union in December 1991, Russian President Yeltsin sent to NATO an open letter stating an intention to join the alliance as a long-term strategic goal.

The next three years presented a “window of opportunity” for transforming Russia from a nuclear armed enemy into an ally of the US. It was missed.

Washington preferred an easier path: admit Eastern European nations to NATO instead of the enormously difficult and not guaranteed effort of co-opting Russia.

As a result, the major European security problem was left to rot.

Moreover, even that policy was not communicated
straightforwardly. That is a lesson for policymakers.

But not a justification for today's aggressive and anti-NATO policy from the Kremlin, as the alliance presents no danger to Russia.

Today appeasers in Europe and "realists" and wishful thinkers in the US argue for putting Ukraine's NATO aspirations aside, like Washington did in the early 1990s to Russia.

Ukraine joining NATO is also heavy lifting, but worth it. If the Kremlin wins this confrontation, the problems in Europe and in Asia would get much worse. Don't step on the same land mine again.

The US declassified documents I mention corroborate exactly what I wrote in my memoir, The Firebird.