[jgannon]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Hmm, way to prove your point by attacking people and not claims. Your personal bias does not prove anything.



See above.



Please note the highlighted text. Confirms what you're saying, no? NO



The article doesn't confirm your point of view, it only reiterates it. If I say the earth is flat and link to a site that also says the earth is flat, would that confirm that the earth is flat? In the meantime, the article does contain links to 30 documents that support their/your view. Surely you can find something in one of those documents that backs up your assertion.



Change of subject. Strawman argument. What does anything you wrote above have to do with NATO promising Russia that it would not expand eastward? Here, let me help you - NOTHING.



I guess from your statement earlier regarding the "honest boy scouts," it's okay for me to attack people, right?

Noam Chomsky:

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky/250chomskylies.pdf

How about a link where Stephen Cohen and John Mearsheimer prove that the US and NATO promised Russia not to expand eastward?

In the meantime, here's Mearsheimer:

https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-conte...-Crisis-Is.pdf

"As the Cold War came to a close, Soviet leaders preferred that U.S.
forces remain in Europe and NATO stay intact, an arrangement they
thought would keep a reunifed Germany pacifed. But they and their
Russian successors did not want NATO to grow any larger and assumed
that Western diplomats understood their concerns. The Clinton administration evidently thought otherwise, and in the mid-1990s, it began pushing for NATO to expand."

Doesn't sound like he believes Russia was promised no eastward expansion by NATO.




Again, has nothing to do with your assertion that Russia was promised no eastward expansion.

The bottom line is Russia claims they were promised that NATO would not expand eastward. You believe that claim. Why? All you can do is cite other people with the same belief and say that confirms your belief. What evidence has been provided to you to make you believe the claim? That's all I'm asking for. Unless I see credible evidence that Russia was promised no eastward expansion by NATO, I have no reason to believe it.

That's right, I do have criticisms of the people and the institutions you site to throw smoke at what Russian scholars and informed government officials assessed at the time regarding eastward expansion of NATO.

Yes, the fourth link was making the same argument I was making. I guess they were all making it up.

Don't have time to read Paul Bogdanor's tome. I'm guess it corroborates everything you're saying.

Regarding the Yaffa article and quote, takeaways aren't always accurate.

Nice nitpicking of Mearsheimer.

Regardless of all this, what people like Kennan and McNamara were saying in the 90s is coming to pass. NATO began expansion when Russia was in chaos, struggling politically and economically. Putin has been talking about Ukraine for years. The U.S. refusal to engage him and take his concerns seriously played a pivotal role in the present crisis. Proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that promises were or weren't made ultimately isn't the issue. What is central, and was of concern to scholars like Cohen and the others mentioned earlier is how Russia would react to the encroachment of NATO on it's borders. Their concerns apparently were well-founded. I guess if Putin had talked to you, he never would have been concerned about Ukraine joining NATO. Troops stationed in bordering countries whose sole purpose is to engage you militarily, and missiles pointed at you aren't dangerous if someone didn't promise you that they wouldn't put them there. And the U.S. was correct in ignoring Putin's concerns despite his repeated statements and warnings, because they had never made that promise.

Anyway, you can have the last word! I'm here for the baseball cards. Have a good one.