[dragonwriter]

> NATO assuring Soviet leaders not to expand eastward "one inch" is backed by documents provided by the National Security Archive, a trustworthy organization.

Binding international commitments heritable by successor states are made in formal instruments, treaties and the like, for a reason. Other representations apply at best to the specific parties and narrow contexts where made, until and unless they are solemnized into a treaty.

To the extent such a representation was made to the USSR prior to and in the context of efforts to get the Soviets to the table on terms for permitting German unification, it would not be binding beyond that process unless included in the eventual treaty, which is was not, and it even more clearly would not be something that one ex-Soviet successor state could, after pursuing and then abandoning pursuit of NATO membership itself, claim any entitlement under, especially against the interests of other former ex-Soviet states.

To the extent the existence of such representations might be fact, it is very much not relevant context to much of anything happening since long before Twitter existed.

[trafficante]

As a relatively uninvested onlooker with regards to “NATO bad/good” (but heavily leaning to “bad”): I found this to be a surprisingly compelling counter argument to the anti-NATO messaging on James Baker making false promises regarding expansion etc.

Just wanted to give props to a well-crafted argument - even if I’m a bit irked for apparently getting caught in the “countries act like people” cognitive shortcut that usually drives me nuts when it’s about economics.

[pastacacioepepe]

The German unification should not have been allowed then.

Basically it took you 158 words to say: Don't trust NATO.

Also this doesn't change the fact that the information is factual and correct. Might not be relevant you say, I say it is, but that's where we enter the territory of opinions.

[dragonwriter]

> Basically it took you 158 words to say: Don't trust NATO

No, the USSR was a big grown up country governed by people that understood the difference between representations prior to neogitarions and treaty commitments and who choose what was and was not important to pursue in a treaty once they decided to engage in that process, and not only choose to sign treaty without any restriction on NATO expansion, but who did not include the issue in negotiations toward the treaty at at all, per Mikhail Grorbachev, the Soviet leader who signed the treaty.

> Also this doesn't change the fact that the information is factual and correct.

The standard for notes is to provide relevant context.

[pastacacioepepe]

> No, the USSR was a big grown up country governed by people that understood the difference...

So to rephrase it: never trust NATO's word.

> The standard for notes is to provide relevant context.

And I say it is relevant. NATO claims to be strictly a defensive alliance, the note adds contextual information to show that NATO is both expanding and waging wars of aggression.

What can be more relevant than that?

[dragonwriter]

> So to rephrase it: never trust NATO's word.

If “trust” to you means “invent application far beyond the context to which a commitment applies”, sure, otherwise, no, that’s not a rephrase.

[jnsaff2]

https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/16961126697559040...