[reducesuffering]

> Russia has publicly expressed regret that it did not get the wording in a treaty though it holds to the idea that assurances made outside of a legal framework are not worthless, whereas to an American legalistic mind it appears, they are.

Russia isn't even holding to an actual legal treaty about respecting the sovereign territorial integrity of Ukraine and you're exclusively pissed at Americans for assurances outside of a legal framework?

[dragonwriter]

> you're exclusively pissed at Americans for assurances outside of a legal framework

...that didn't happen anyway and are propaganda that exists only to support the Russia violation of their actual treaty with Ukraine.

[pydry]

The expansion of NATO came first in 97- at a point when Russia was militarily at its weakest, and a drunk American puppet was in charge.

Crimea would likely still belong to Ukraine if NATO hadnt done that - eastern europe being a buffer being the presumption built into the negotiations. There was some trust before. There is none now.

As it was, the pushback on NATO against the vulnerable, much invaded western border once Russia recovered economic and military strength was inevitable.

As inevitable as the NATO invasion and occupation of Afghanistan when in 2001 the Taliban dared to request evidence and a trial while Americans bayed for blood.

[felipelemos]

> Crimea would likely still belong to Ukraine if NATO hadnt done that - [...]

Shifting the blame to a third party is a very biased way of see this.

[pydry]

I wasnt ascribing blame or praise - you must have inferred that. This is simply a reflection of the geopolitical reality.