When the Soviet Union ended, we promised the Russians no expansion of NATO. But, the greedy bastards involved with it decided NATO couldn't exist without expansion and didn't care about the consequences.
“”When the Soviet Union ended, we promised the Russians no expansion of NATO.””
If so then show us that treaty, and especially the part where Russia decides which countries are allowed to join NATO.
M.G.: The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn't brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a singe Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn't bring it up, either. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO's military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker's statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context. Kohl and [German Vice Chancellor Hans-Dietrich] Genscher talked about it.No promises were made before or after the USSR collapsed about NATO not expanding into other countries. All the discussions were specifically about and limited to East Germany.
“we promised the Russians no expansion of NATO.”
not true. Germany promised it would not expand eastward.
NATO was/is always going to expand.
Russia is not likely to tolerate Ukraine in NATO, at this time.
Russia might tolerate Ukraine in NATO, if Ukraine territory that is currently under Ukraine control, is where the war stops - at the moment that Russia and Ukraine agree to a halt.
Presently, Ukraine does not yet appreciate how fortunate it is, being able to hang on to that territory. Ukraine will be hard pressed to hang on to that - especially Kharkiv.
Because Russia is going for Kharkiv, confident that Ukraine will not be able to maintain any significant grip on pieces of the Crimea.
There will not likely be peace, as long as Moscow has the will to bombard Ukrainian territory - from any distance and for years, for the sake of cruelty, power, and vanity.
Europe will not exhaust itself, trying to force Russia to stop, because of the EU command that the bulk of European peoples remain in a socialist-catatonic state of need at the mercy of Merkelism (a product of communism).
Russians - in Russia - have to be willing to stop Moscow. But there are plenty of Russians who are not yet convinced of that being a necessity.
In Iran, there is a greater portion of the people who are convinced that the Islamic dictatorship must end, but like Russia, the martial burden upon people who wish to be free of tyranny, is a lot to overcome.
In Ukraine, as well as outside of Ukraine, I believe that the notion, that Russians in general, should be prosecuted for the war generated by Moscow, is a mistake.
Because, there are a lot of good Russian people - and Europe needs people to stand up against tryanny, such as the tyranny of . . . the European Union form of socialism.
Basically, the whole mess over there, is a competition among socialists. Germans want *their* socialism. French socialists (various flavors) all want *their* socialism. And Ukrainians.
And progressives of the west.
“The inevitability” about which college professors speak, in order to get students to bow down to socialism, is not socialism . . . but, the cruelty of socialists in competition.
They lust for power. The issues, are not the issues. The current terminology, “moving goal posts,” re socialism, is the same old “5 year plan” - central planning.
Such as “climate change” - a perpetually changing crisis according to socialists.
IMHO