Flashback: How Yeltsin Gleefully Drove Bill Clinton to Tears. Who’s Crying Now?

Yeltsin grinned while Clinton cried.

The Russian president had just blurted out his unfiltered reaction to American news reporting.

It was October, 1995. Clinton and Yeltsin had just spoken at the United Nations 50th anniversary meeting.

The next day the two presidents got together at Hyde Park, New York for a bilateral meeting followed by a press conference.

It was then that Yeltsin told the media his take on his US visit. He said that when he came here that October he did not have the degree of optimism with which he was now departing. The bilateral meeting had apparently been productive.

But then he dropped his brutal statement about our American press:

“Coming from my statement yesterday in the United Nations, and if you looked at the press reports, one could see that what you were writing was that today’s meeting with President Bill Clinton was going to be a disaster. And now for the first time I can tell you that you’re a disaster.”

That’s what set off Clinton’s crying. But his tears were not for the press or over any danger or fear. They were tears of laughter. Both presidents had a good laugh over Yeltsin’s remarks about our American news style. You can see the video from the AP archive on YouTube.

Today, though, Clinton would have nothing to laugh about given the present state of bilateral relations.

Back at Hyde Park, Yeltsin had gone on, “…our partnership is not calculated for one year or for five years, but for years and years to come – tens of years, for a century; that we’re friends, and that it’s only together, together, [that] we’re going to be trying to solve not only our joint bilateral issues but issues affecting the whole world.” (ibid)

This was not the first time the new Russian and American friendship was mutually proclaimed. That was made clear at the presidents’ April 1993 Vancouver summit. A White House press release that followed said, “President Bill Clinton of the United States of America and President Boris Yeltsin of the Russian Federation declared their firm commitment to a dynamic and effective US-Russian partnership that strengthens international stability.”

In a follow-up phone call now declassified, Clinton told Yeltsin, “I’m about to issue a statement in support of your policies. I want you to know that we’re in this with you for the long haul. We made some significant progress in Vancouver and Tokyo. We’ll keep working here to be supportive. If there is anything I can do for you here, please let me know.

It is quite obvious today, that that those past optimistic aspirations did not stand the test of time. Today we find ourselves lavishly sponsoring Ukraine as it bombs Russia and invades and occupies a small part of Russia’s home territory.

Our actions were seemingly as support for the beleaguered Ukraine, a victim of a brutal invasion ordered by Vladimir Putin in 2022. But any idea of friendship and partnership with Russia is long gone. Truth be known, it was even gone long before Russia’s disastrous invasion of Ukraine.

And ironically, it was President Bill Clinton himself who set the US and Russia on a collision course.

You see, it was Clinton that put in motion NATO’s eastward expansion. That ultimately advanced to talk of placing NATO forces right up against Russia’s sensitive border with Ukraine. Russia considered that to be a security threat of existential proportion.

Clinton had revealed his hidden agenda on this when he spoke to The Atlantic in 2022. He claimed: “When I first became president, I said that I would support Russian President Boris Yeltsin in his efforts to build a good economy and a functioning democracy after the dissolution of the Soviet Union – but I would also support an expansion of NATO to include former Warsaw Pact members and post-Soviet states.”

Certainly it’s always good to be prepared for the worst. But Clinton’s plan was in abrogation of a contract made between presidents G.H.W. Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev. It assured Gorbachev that “within the framework of Nato, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.

This matter is often dismissed because it was never a condition of any treaty. But I’ve examined carefully the official sources on the matter and find present all the elements of a verbal contract. The Soviets performed their obligations in the contract, but Clinton abrogated ours. Under US law verbal contracts are perfectly legal, but difficult to enforce. Clinton apparently hid behind that in his actions regarding Nato expansion.

In 1985 presidents Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev issued a joint statement:

“A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”

That admonition seems to be freely ignored now. On September 25, 2024 Reuters reported, “President Vladimir Putin warned the West on Wednesday that Russia could use nuclear weapons if it was struck with conventional missiles, and that Moscow would consider any assault on it supported by a nuclear power to be a joint attack.”

It is well known that it is Russia’s military doctrine that an existential threat will be met with a nuclear response.

But Russell Berman, a Stanford University professor, writing in The National Interest, April 6, 2023, proclaims that “Ukraine must win its war with Russia.” He says, “It is foolish and short-sighted to withhold from Ukraine the tools it needs to win.”

Is Berman nuts? What’s worse is that there are prominent American politicians who seem to hold the same position, i.e. that Ukraine must win not settle the war. Unless stopped these people will risk saber-rattling our way into a nuclear war, it seems to me.

Europe is already preparing for the worst. On March 20, Politico ran the story, “Von der Leyen asks Finland to prepare the EU for war.”

On October 31, 2024 Newsweek reported, “Europeans Told to Stockpile Food in Case of War with Russia.”

We Americans are mostly being kept in the dark over the present danger. Our former Civil Defense structure is long gone. Could it be that too many influential people are profiting or benefiting from the military activity? President Eisenhower warned us of such a possibility in his farewell address.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., in an interview by Chris Cuomo, likened Russia’s present situation to that confronted by his uncle President Kennedy in 1962. That’s when he brought the US and the USSR to the brink of nuclear war over the Soviet military advances in Cuba. Thankfully, President Kennedy held strong against those within our country that urged him to fight instead of negotiate. The matter was settled peacefully.

Will our next president succumb to internal pressures to keep the war gravy train going? I’m writing this before the election. But I hope that voters will have checked out who the politicians are that want military victory over a peaceful settlement. The 2024 election is not just for president. House and Senate seats are up, too.

Clearly nuclear war is not an issue on voters’ minds. It doesn’t register like more popular concerns over higher prices, jobs, immigration, abortion, and taxes. But nuclear war is far more consequential. Unlike the other important issues, it is an existential threat.

Remember Clinton’s tears and the Clinton-Yeltsin laugh-fest? Today’s issues have truly risen to an existential threat. This is nothing to laugh or cry about. It’s no time for domestic political maneuvering. It’s now time that our politicians get serious and find a way to peacefully end the hostilities quickly, and in an honest and direct manner.

William Dunkerley is an international media business analyst based in Connecticut. He is the author of Ukraine in the Crosshairs, plus many other books, monograms, and over 100 articles on post-Soviet issues.