Deconstructing the NATO Expansion Lie of the Russians

I'm aware that Russia had concerns. Not relevant to their obligations to project the sovereignty of Ukraine and violation thereof as NATO expansion wasn't built into the agreements and was abandoned as the deal was worked out.

Follow the breadcrumbs, Waco. We can point to quite a bit on this. Especially once you consider where the lines were drawn and what was actually agreed to. Gorby's own words. Originally Posted by HDGristle

you are also aware that there was never any commitment for security of Ukraine by NATO in the fallout of the USSR's collapse. so why is NATO so upset about this? its a Ukraine/Russia issue.



let them sort it out.

Baker’s own words

then-Secretary of State James Baker suggested that in exchange for cooperation on Germany, U.S. could make “iron-clad guarantees” that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.”

So Wrong Side Gristle admits the US and NATO’s word is meaningless. They lied and people died. But war is profitable. Who cares who dies.

Baker’s own words

then-Secretary of State James Baker suggested that in exchange for cooperation on Germany, U.S. could make “iron-clad guarantees” that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.”

So Wrong Side Gristle admits the US and NATO’s word is meaningless. They lied and people died. But war is profitable. Who cares who dies. Originally Posted by bambino

Bam, the Baker discussion and Germany discussions were early in the negotiation. You're missing the forest for the trees

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/d...achev-says-no/

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-b...-leaders-early

My position allows for your to be true and false, which it is. Hilariously so. While those discussions did happen and we can check readouts, the final negotiations did not include NATO expansion, nor did the final agreement.

You're fumbling with this. Do some more reading, my dude.

Anybody play Stratego?

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/s...-negotiator-24