Cross-posted from: https://feddit.de/post/9912794
While a US commitment that NATO would not expand towards Russia was made during talks with the Soviets in 1990, and remains a topic of heated dispute, no undertaking was written into the treaty on German reunification.
No treaty? Yes, factually that is true.
But you could say we where double dealing. We said something, did another.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy_in_Russia_regarding_the_legitimacy_of_eastward_NATO_expansion?wprov=sfla1
And the linked article in the post says the same. Yes , oral guarantees where made. No, they where never written down and quickly forgotten when push came to shove. Probably because we knew russia could do jack shit about it at that time. And still can’t .
There is no treaty and nothing written down. Each side claims there was a verbal agreement which was advantageous to them. So I don’t think we can really make much of it.
You know who did make an agreement though? Russia and the USA guaranteed independence for Ukraine in exchange for them giving up their nukes.
Eats hot dog
See how this makes no sense?
No, there were negotiations for the reunification of Germany and during those a few Western officals offered not to go further east. However that ended up not being part of the final treaties. In fact the 2+4 Treaty, which the Soviets signed does clearly state that ALL of Germany is part of NATO, with NATO troops being allowed to be stationed in former East Germany as well. Obviously that is just Germany, but in no other country, did the Soviets have any sort of legal reason to deny joing NATO what sort ever.
So no this is just Russian propaganda and not to be taken seriously.
yeah and the current situation is do to the breaking of an actual written down agreement so no surprise oral promises would be off the table.
I really don’t understand the logic that Sweden and Finland witnessed their neighbor being invaded twice in 10 years, with absolutely no provocation, they voluntarily join a defensive alliance, and for some reason people still defend Russia for actually invading, giving a defense an action that caused the offensive action (it’s the russian invasion that triggeted nato expansion, not the contrary).
It’s as if a thief was justified in straling stuff in your property because you put a fence to defend from thieves, don’t you see how illogical it is?