[aguaviva]

Even if we accept your paraphrase, that's still quite different from saying "... is irrelevant to Russia's security."

Especially when we look at the broader context of what Albright was trying to say in that situation.

And don't bother trying ...

Keep it civil, please.

[hackinthebochs]

No, its not at all different. Like I said, bad faith.

Edit: Lol didn't recognize your username. If you didn't begin your engagements on such an adversarial footing, you might get more constructive replies.

[aguaviva]

No, its not at all different.

And that's your mistake. The statements are clearly quite different. In exactly the same way that the statement:

   The tumor is benign

Is obviously quite different from:

   The tumor is irrelevant

If you didn't begin your engagements on such an adversarial footing,

Nothing of the sort is happening here.

You were provided with a necessary correction, in the hope that it would be helpful to you.

[hackinthebochs]

"And even more precisely: it's a claim that absolutely no one makes."

"So you're gaslighting yourself, in effect."

Come now, those are very much adversarial.

Regarding the main point of contention: Russia complains about NATO expansion raising security concerns and the response from NATO/US representatives is "NATO is defensive pact", "Russia has nothing to fear from NATO", "This is a new NATO... Its enemy is not Russia", and so on. This list could go on and on. But the denial of NATO presenting a security concern to Russia is just an assertion that NATO is benign to Russia's security. In other words, NATO expansion is irrelevant to Russian security. These terms all mean the same thing in the context of whether NATO and NATO expansion is a security threat to Russia.

Seriously, this is all just the basic meaning of words. If it's not obvious to you, then I don't know what to tell you. Perhaps consult ChatGPT.

[aguaviva]

Come now, those are very much adversarial.

The first statement (the one that began the engagement) obviously was not.

And ironically -- your misinterpretation of that statement (as adversarial when it clearly wasn't) is exactly what I was referring to in the second statement. By which was meant, in somewhat longer form: "It seems you're going out of your way to read adversarial intent when there simply isn't any in there."

[hackinthebochs]

Yes, we clearly live in different universes.

The only time someone says "absolutely no one thinks/says/does X" is when they are politely accusing someone of lying or bullshitting. So yes, very much adversarial. This should all just be so obvious.

>The tumor is benign

You left off the contextualizing clause which just changes the meaning of the sentence. "The tumor is benign/irrelevant to your continued ability to play the piano" has the same meaning with either phrasing.

[aguaviva]

The only time someone says "absolutely no one thinks/says/does X" is when they are politely accusing someone of lying or bullshitting.

No, they're saying they have reason to believe your characterization is inaccurate. And it's not in the least adversarial to do so. It's a normal and healthy part of everyday discourse, actually.

You should welcome it.

[aguaviva]

As to the main point of contention -- I think a fair description of the consensus view of the situation, among people who have the temerity to disagree with you, goes about like this:

"Of course NATO enlargement was something of an annoyance to Russia. Specifically it can be taken as a signal that NATO might confront Russia's own moves for influence in say, the Balkans, North Africa or the Middle East -- places that, last we checked, are not Russia. It may even choose to involve itself in direct conflict with Russia's allies, such as Serbia, for good reasons or bad. One could also argue that it threatens Russia's 'brand' and prestige in softer ways; and one could even argue that the very existence of NATO is kind of an insult to Russia."

"But every rational actor knows that NATO was never going to actually attack Russia, itself, without cause. Or even threaten to do so. Certainly not in the sense of an all-out, tanks-across-the-steppes assault, or a pre-emptive nuclear strike that Russia pretends to believe is the ultimate goal of its expansion."

"Nor is there any long-range plan in the works to station forces of any kind on Russia's borders that could potentially threaten or signal the capability for such an invasion, in for extortion purposes (in essence), as Russia's current regime also pretends to believe. You simply will not find a shred of evidence for any line of thinking in support of such a plan."

"All that pretense is just that -- pretense and propaganda. It's just a foil that its various incarnations of its regime have used, over decade, first to justify its continued occupation of the Warsaw Pact countries, and now, to distract from its actual reasons for its invading Ukraine (and manacing other countries). And to get its people to sign up for the endless meat-grinder war it managed to create for them there, once its delusional expectations of a quick, decisive victory evaporated on first contact with reality."

So if people say things like "NATO's expansion is benign to Russia's security concerns", that's the framing in which that sentiment is most likely meant. They may be oversimplifying slightly, but not by much.