“Why would the Soviets/Russians ever have agreed to allow it”
That line is parroting Putin’s Russian empire revivalist thinking in a number of ways and ignores, as I have repeated, and as Gorbachev admitted, Baker’s comments were about post-unified Germany at that time, not some future Eastern Europe after the Warsaw pact nations broke free of the disentegrating Soviet Union.
1. Like Putin it posits that the Soviet Union expansion into controlling so many in Eastern Europe, was as Putin believes, really about “Russian” interests more than the expansion of the Soviet communists realm. Yet, that is contrary to how Eastern European’s, freed from the Soviet Union saw it, until Putin began to ressurect that idea. Putin has, contrary to his desires, helped make Eastern Europe suspicious of his motives.
2. Nothing ever said or done with the Soviet Union and between the Soviet Union and others,”gauranteed” that the future security interests any of the former Warsaw pact nations would NOT be determined by their own choices and in accord with what they would see as their interest. No one presumed that “Russia” had a hold on those interests.
3. It has been Putin’s decision to maintain a cold war military stance with western Europe, abrogating every military and missle treaty Putin made with the west. It was Putin’s choosing to remain an adversary, and by doing so maintain “red lines” that no non-dictatorship, peaceful and truly democratic Russia would need. Putin’s own positions and actions have made for the conditions he now uses as excuses for his red lines. Russia could have been to western Europe as Canada is to the U.S., with a similar size common land border neither worries about. PUTIN decided that was not to be. Putin decided not to change the Soviet military position vis-a-vis the west - to him it was always a “Rusian” position not a Soviet position. NATO did not cause that. It was Putin’s choice.
I have already shown your claim here to be false. Gorbachev said the exact opposite.
1. Like Putin it posits that the Soviet Union expansion into controlling so many in Eastern Europe, was as Putin believes, really about “Russian” interests more than the expansion of the Soviet communists realm. Yet, that is contrary to how Eastern European’s, freed from the Soviet Union saw it, until Putin began to ressurect that idea. Putin has, contrary to his desires, helped make Eastern Europe suspicious of his motives.
Having studied a lot of history and lived in Eastern/Central Europe twice I know a lot of the countries/people in that region are suspicious of Russia and they have a lot of historical reasons to feel that way. In that part of the world you got a binary choice for centuries. You either aligned with the Germans or with the Russians. If you tried to be separate and apart - like Poland - you simply got crushed by both.
How much/to what extend Soviet imperialism was really Russian imperialism and how much the Soviet Union was something different from the Russian Empire vs how much it was really just the Russians still in charge operating under the fig leaf that all the Soviet Republics were equal is something people can argue until the end of time. There is no definitive answer one way or the other.
2. Nothing ever said or done with the Soviet Union and between the Soviet Union and others,”gauranteed” that the future security interests any of the former Warsaw pact nations would NOT be determined by their own choices and in accord with what they would see as their interest. No one presumed that “Russia” had a hold on those interests.
According to Gorbachev, that's exactly what the US promised in 1990. You can stand on a soap box and talk about how they're independent countries and yada yada yada. So is Cuba. Yet the US was not willing to allow Soviet missiles there. Would the US allow say, the Chinese to set up military bases in Northern Mexico even if the Mexicans agreed to it? Hell no it wouldn't allow that. The Mexicans could grandstand and talk about their sacred national sovereignty all they wanted. The US would never allow that. Major powers get extremely touchy about other major powers encroaching on what they perceive as their back yard. It has always been this way. It always will be this way.
3. It has been Putin’s decision to maintain a cold war military stance with western Europe, abrogating every military and missle treaty Putin made with the west. It was Putin’s choosing to remain an adversary, and by doing so maintain “red lines” that no non-dictatorship, peaceful and truly democratic Russia would need. Putin’s own positions and actions have made for the conditions he now uses as excuses for his red lines. Russia could have been to western Europe as Canada is to the U.S., with a similar size common land border neither worries about. PUTIN decided that was not to be. Putin decided not to change the Soviet military position vis-a-vis the west - to him it was always a “Rusian” position not a Soviet position. NATO did not cause that. It was Putin’s choice.
The Russians (not just Putin) say the exact opposite. They do have some solid facts to back them up. Russia asked to join NATO. Russia dramatically cut its military budget after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Russia tried to and did cultivate economic ties with Western Europe. They wanted the Cold War to end. As numerous US diplomats in the 1990s said expanding NATO was a big mistake and would cause Russia to be hostile. That included George Kennan, (Nixon had previously warned against treating Russia as hostile), Sam Nunn, Bill Bradley, Pat Buchanan, Stansfield Turner, Robert McNamara, and many more.