[mcv]

> I don't get why such commitments were made in the first place. Why is it OK for Russia to be dictating what sovereign countries can or cannot do within their own borders?

It wasn't a Russian dictate, it was an agreement. Russia didn't want a strong NATO presence in eastern Europe. NATO of course has to be able to defend its members. But the best defense is if they don't get attacked at all, so if Russia promises not to threaten or attack, then NATO an promise not to commit a large defense there.

But it's been pretty clear that this has been woefully outdated for some time now. Russia does attack its neighbours, takes land from them, and threatens NATO members.

The commitments made sense when Yeltsin was president of Russia. Yeltsin had honestly no interest in conquering, threatening or coercing Russian neighbours. It's a good idea to formalise that so NATO can reduce its military presence. But Putin is very different, and has been very threatening and aggressive. In violation of the treaty, and clearly making NATO presence necessary.