44 ms·
Yes, it was discussed. But discussion and proposal is not an agreement, and not a promise. The article has no sources, and the most relevant part is “ U.S. coul
by windock 5y ago
Yes, it was discussed. But discussion and proposal is not an agreement, and not a promise. The article has no sources, and the most relevant part is
“ U.S. could make “iron-clad guarantees” that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.””
That just does not prove NATO agreed not to expand.
- medo-bear 5y agothe article does mention sources. read it. its an article not an essay. anyway i think it is very hard to argue that us and nato were honest. it is even harder to argue that nato is not a threat to russia. i find that in politics just as in life the simplest explanation is often the right one
- windock 5y agoEvery Eastern and Central European country joined NATO because of their fear of Russian aggression. Every former Pact country switched sides not to repeat history of being commandeered by Russia. That whole alliance was born to protect members from Russia. The simplest explanation is no one wants to be occupied by Russia so that Russia does not feel “threatened”.
- medo-bear 5y agoyour argument works only if russia actually wanted to invade these countries, for which there is zero evidence, esspecially at the time those countries joined nato. if anything, if you take your argument of threat from russia seriously, their security decreased. on the other hand, russia was attacked multiple times by western european countries and lost millions of its citizens. i think their unease at an alliamce which you yourself say is hostile, is justified