It is very unfortunate that many in the West, also in South Africa, are inclined to want to place all the blame for the recent developments in Ukraine on Putin and Russia.
Based on my own experiences with various Russian governments (ie meetings with President Yeltsin , Putin and Medvedev) and people over many years as part of the SA delegations of Presidents Mandela, Mbeki and Minister Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma to Russia, it was very evident back then that the current crisis has had a long and complex history, from both a western and Russian perspective.
The crisis was caused by complicated reasons, including Nato's continued aggressive expansion that caused concrete security threats to Russia and other non-Nato countries in the region. So it would be grossly unfair to simply blame and accuse one side.
The Russian narrative conveyed to our SA delegations by the Russians over a long period in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, was that “the West deceived them and acted in a way that left them out of a post-Cold War Europe”. It was more than evident that it was going to be hard to bridge these positions which let emotions run high, given the fact that Russia strongly reached out to the West at the time but that it was “ rudely ignored “ , with a result that Russian hopes over 30 years ago of being part of Europe didn't materialise. So the current crisis is an ongoing fall out out from the disintegration of the Soviet Union in the early nineties.
We as the SA delegations were often reminded by the Russians during discussions on multilateral affairs, that after the Cold War, Russia showed an initial interest in “associating and working with Nato “ but the request was summarily wiped off the table by Nato. Furthermore that Nato promised Russia that it would not expand, but failed to keep its promise.
The Nato expansion has brought heavy pressure on Russia as Nato continued to deploy weapons and missile defence systems in countries around Russia, and this has undermined the nuclear strategic balance in Europe. At the same time, however, it appeared that the Americans were consistently trying to convince the Russians that their concerns about Nato would be respected.
Jim Baker, the US Secretary of State at the time , pledged in Moscow on May 18, 1990, that the USA would cooperate with the Soviet Union in the “development of a new Europe.” And in June 1990 , per talking points prepared at the time for President George Bush, the latter was telling Soviet leaders that the United States sought “a new, inclusive Europe.”
President Yeltsin wrote to President Bill Clinton in a letter in September 1993 stating “ that it is important to take into account how our public opinion might react to that step “ ( the expansion of Nato).
But Yeltsin also cited what he cast as assurances given to Soviet officials during the negotiations on German unification, by adding that "the spirit of the treaty on the final settlement... precludes the option of expanding the Nato zone into the East."
Four years later, in an effort to assuage Moscow's concerns, Nato and Russia signed the Russian and Nato Founding Act , an political agreement stating, among other things, that "Nato and Russia do not consider each other as adversaries."
In 2002, Nato and Russia agreed to set up a joint consultative council, ostensibly as a mechanism to resolve disagreements. But the sad thing was that the USA and Nato never were serious about implementing meaningful dialogue. The 1997 Founding Act was well-intentioned, as was the 2002 creation of the Nato-Russia Council but these agreements have "never worked," because Nato often continued to takes actions that affected Russian or regional security without consulting Moscow.
In fact a few years later , Nato underwent its largest expansion in its history, admitting seven more Eastern European countries, including the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, which had been republics of the Soviet Union. While it wasn't the first time a Nato member bordered Russia or the Soviet Union, now a Nato member's troops potentially could be located just 625 kilometres from Moscow.
Russia‘s insecurity is compounded by the fact that Russia ‘s defence budget amounts to 8 percent of that of the USA whereas Nato as a whole spends 20 times what Russia spends on its military.
As far back as 2007, at the Munich Security Conference,which i happened to attend , Putin unleashed vehement criticism against Nato, as well as the United States, accusing the alliance of duplicity and of threatening Russia. He stated
"I think it is obvious that Nato expansion has no relation with the modernization of the alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust.”
Putin desperately asked “ what happened to the assurances our Western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are those guarantees and declarations today ?" A remark that prompted some head-scratching, because the debate had focused almost exclusively on remarks made before the Warsaw Pact fell apart.
Even the last US ambassador to the Soviet Union, Jack Matlock, had repeatedly insisted, both in congressional testimony and later that Gorbachev had received assurances that if Germany united, and stayed in Nato, the borders of Nato would not move eastward.
Given the current serious crisis in Ukraine, it is a fact that Nato's enlargement could have been "managed" in a much more effective and honest manner to minimise misunderstandings. It is generally stated by International commentators that it was possible to both enlarge Nato and avoid conflict. The chance was, however, missed and today we see a worsening conflict with possible devastating global consequences .
Putin having the support of the overwhelming part of the Russian population , increasingly continues to put forward the narrative to the Russian people that Russia was deceived by Nato and the USA, in fact , presenting Russia as a victim of broken promises . There are many worthwhile books on this topic which reflect the “ trauma, humiliation and broken pride “ of the Russian people in the post-Soviet period . I would recommend to all those who tend to place all the blame on Russia to read a book by Svetlana Alexievich’s, titled “ Second -hand Time.” for which she received the Noble prize for Literature. It provides a fascinating insight and emotional understanding of Russia and its people during and after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
“ Second - hand Time “ is a masterpiece – not only for what it says about the fall of the Soviet Union but for what it suggests about the future of Russia and its former satellites. If only the West had read this book!
All parties concerned should, however, continue dialogue and consultation, and seek reasonable solutions to the Ukraine crisis, to address each other's concerns on the basis of equality and mutual respect. There is no other option!
* Grobler is the former South African ambassador to Madagascar
** The views expressed here are not necessarily those of IOL and Independent Media.