[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...