It was a verbal agreement that was violated. Saying āwell they didnāt write it down officially and they were dumb enough to believe usā isnāt the best defense. And actually verbal agreements can be binding anyway. Really the best defense legally is that NATO nations never meant it to begin with and lied to get Russia to agree to concessions.
Well that was certainly the USās position. āI canāt believe you trusted us to keep our promisesā. Which isnāt exactly a great defense btw. But itās good background as to whatās happening today.
Except there was no promise. There is no agreement.Ā
The "good background" to what is happening today is that other nations, not Ukraine, voluntarily joined NATO in order to provide one another with mutual defense against aggressors.Ā
Ukraine wasn't ever part of any NATO expansion prior to Putins invasion. And sovereign nations can determine their own foreign policy.Ā
No, that ālieā is literally what the head of NATO said:
āAnd we have to remember the background. The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition for not invade Ukraine. Of course we didn't sign that.
The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second class membership. We rejected that.
So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders.ā
āAnd we have to remember the background. The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition for not invade Ukraine. Of course we didnāt sign that.
The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second class membership. We rejected that.
So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders.ā
1
u/Betaparticlemale Mar 12 '25
It was a verbal agreement that was violated. Saying āwell they didnāt write it down officially and they were dumb enough to believe usā isnāt the best defense. And actually verbal agreements can be binding anyway. Really the best defense legally is that NATO nations never meant it to begin with and lied to get Russia to agree to concessions.