4 ms·

> There was never any agreement, because a suggestion of even such agreement is anachronistic garbage. That’s fine. You either lack reading comprehension (see

> There was never any agreement, because a suggestion of even such agreement is anachronistic garbage. That’s fine. You either lack reading comprehension (see previous replies) or judge the material to be “not an agreement”. And that’s okay. Because you don’t contest—or if you are you are failing at it—the claim that verbal statements about NATO non-expansion[1] were made by the Western representatives in the general direction of the Soviet representatives. Which was the claim that I have been proving ever since the first reply[2] to my comment. [1] Choosing my words carefully here in order to not trigger your “agreement” firewall. [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36534745 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36534745

chrysler 3y ago
The only one lacking reading comprehension here are you, if you want to go down the path of personal insults. "Verbal statements" and "in the general direction" is an unconvincing attempt to turn history on its head. Many things were said as the USSR was falling apart, but no-one from the Soviet side has ever elevated them to the level of an agreement that countries should abide by. Hence why Russia didn't protest when former Warsaw Pact countries joined NATO. The narrative appeared 17 years later when Putin started looking for ways to isolate Georgia prior to invasion.
- avgcorrection 3y ago
  > Many things were said as the USSR was falling apart, but no-one from the Soviet side has ever elevated them to the level of an agreement that countries should abide by. Hence why Russia didn't protest when former Warsaw Pact countries joined NATO. Of course these officials are not going to say that there was some formal agreement since there was none in the first place. I have never said that there was a formal agreement. I have never said that the talks produced some kind of proof-of-agreement. I have never said that there was anything binding about it. Now stop pestering me with this irrelevant side-topic that only you care about. > The narrative appeared 17 years later when Putin started looking for ways to isolate Georgia prior to invasion. “The invasion”. You’re supposed to use the definitive article here.

chrysler 3y ago

The only one lacking reading comprehension here are you, if you want to go down the path of personal insults. "Verbal statements" and "in the general direction" is an unconvincing attempt to turn history on its head. Many things were said as the USSR was falling apart, but no-one from the Soviet side has ever elevated them to the level of an agreement that countries should abide by. Hence why Russia didn't protest when former Warsaw Pact countries joined NATO. The narrative appeared 17 years later when Putin started looking for ways to isolate Georgia prior to invasion.

avgcorrection 3y ago
> Many things were said as the USSR was falling apart, but no-one from the Soviet side has ever elevated them to the level of an agreement that countries should abide by. Hence why Russia didn't protest when former Warsaw Pact countries joined NATO. Of course these officials are not going to say that there was some formal agreement since there was none in the first place. I have never said that there was a formal agreement. I have never said that the talks produced some kind of proof-of-agreement. I have never said that there was anything binding about it. Now stop pestering me with this irrelevant side-topic that only you care about. > The narrative appeared 17 years later when Putin started looking for ways to isolate Georgia prior to invasion. “The invasion”. You’re supposed to use the definitive article here.