In contrast with the later, more nebulous promises of no further NATO expansion. Russia mantains that this was a literal promise, broken by the US. It is their supposed justification for their own treaty violations. Now, I am discussing stated policy here, not conspiracies or my personal opinion… Nobody had any doubt that the US was a supporter of the disintegration of the USSR.
Putin is a ruthless person when he needs to be, and cultivates his public image well. He has positioned himself as an arbiter amongst all the Russian factions, and somebody who will also enforce his will if arbitration fails. He also seems to actually have majority support in the electorate. He is populist, really. A stone faced Russian populist rather than a bombastic American one, but a populist nonetheless.
The last year has revealed that Putin is a fool who believes his yes-men and has little understanding of the real world outside his bubble, and especially of the Western world.
Except Yeltsin wasn’t a liberal democrat. He was a corrupt kleptocrat. Which is why I think Russia would have been better off with Gorbachev. From what I know of him, he was the Russian version of Jimmy Carter, and just like with Carter, the Russian people decided that they would rather have someone who pretended he was acting for the good of the people than someone who actually did so, despite the temporary pain it was causing.
He (Yeltsin) supported a liberal, democratic form of government. Multi party elections. He did not attempt to change the law to place himself in charge indefinitely. I do not want to hijack too far, but it seems fair to say he was a liberal democrat. Now you can say he sucked at his job, sure.
Sorry, and not sorry. 
Gorbachev introduced multi party elections as part of perestroika and glasnost. The first ever free election in Russian history was in March 1989. I know, as I was there and I still have some of the flyers from some of the candidates.
I was not aware of that, and thank you for educating me. I was talking about Putin though, in contrast with Yeltsin. Strictly Russian Federation, post USSR.
This hour-long documentary was on TV here yesterday: deeply depressing.
BBC Four - Storyville, Inside Russia: Traitors and Heroes by
Cite please?
But at one point in history, Putin’s Russia wanted to join NATO.
“Russia is part of European culture. And I cannot imagine my own country in isolation from Europe and what we often call the civilised world. So it is hard for me to visualise NATO as an enemy,” said Putin, the country’s acting president in 2000, three weeks before the election, which made him president…
[A]ccording to the then-NATO chief George Robertson, Putin bluntly asked: “When are you going to invite us to join Nato?” Robertson advised the Russian president that he needs to “apply to join NATO” and not expect an invitation.
Mikhail Gorbachev said that “You say that NATO is not directed against us, that it is simply a security structure that is adapting to new realities … therefore, we propose to join NATO.” However, Baker dismissed the possibility as a “dream”.[192] In 1991, as the Soviet Union was dissolved, Russian president Boris Yeltsin sent a letter to NATO, suggesting that Russia’s long-term aim was to join NATO.
It appears they never quite got to the point of formally applying, my mistake. Moves were made by Russian leaders in that direction though. And these moves were not warmly received by NATO. Thank you Johnny L.A. for your cites, I make a mess of links when attempting it from my phone.
If they said they wanted to join NATO, but never actually applied, then they were just plain lying when they said they wanted to join.
Maybe they decided that they didn’t want to join any club that would have them as a member.
Wrong Marx.
Is the argument “Russia indicated that maybe they were interested in joining NATO, but then the other countries did not rejoice enough at this, so they didn’t , and therefore they get to invade Ukraine and kill people”???
That does appear to be the line of thinking, generally.
No, I don’t think it really makes sense when you phrase it differently, either.
Imo it was a mistake to allow Russia on as a permanent member of the UN Security Counsel. -Complete with veto power.
Critics say that the veto is the most undemocratic element of the UN,(United Nations Security Council veto power - Wikipedia) as well as the main cause of inaction on war crimes and crimes against humanity, as it effectively prevents UN action against the permanent members and their allies.
Note: some links removed^.
Nobody has made that argument anywhere. Mr. “I am a blind supporter of the war and I don’t want to hear anything else.”
That might be true, but it was also an impossible problem to solve. Russia had the nukes, and the capital city, and most of the military forces. How else could the problem have been solved?