It's a very well known non-agreement.
> James Baker agreeing to Gorbachev that NATO would expand "not another inch" eastward
That's...not how binding international agreements are formed.
EVERYONE: claps
RUSSIA: says one thing and do the other one
EVERYONE: gasps
Putin just said it's a consequence of Lenin creating the fake entity of Ukraine on territory that should be Russian exacerbated by Stalin transferring additional territory that should be Russian to the fake entity of Ukraine.
Sounds like Russia (or at least Putin, who definitely has a l’etat, c’est moi thing going on), thinks the fundamental problem is the fall of the Russian Empire, not NATO, which is just an impediment to restoring the Empire.
And the other president said:
> "Sorry losers and haters, but my I.Q. is one of the highest -and you all know it! Please don't feel so stupid or insecure, it's not your fault."
At least that one really believed himself.
If you believe in Putin's words directed to the most dumb (and thus extremely patriotic) citizens of his [own] country then I have no stakes here anymore.
Sovereign countries choose to join the club. Besides, why would it be amusing for Russia to punish Ukraine for (perceived) grievances against the US?
Thank you, this is exactly the point I arrived at as well. It's an admission that the primary tool of the US State Department is to make friendly, reasonable verbal agreements in front of the press and public, then do the dirty move they really wanted to do when the news cycle has moved past. This maintains the appearance to the US public that their foreign policy is always just, and never cynical or deceitful.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.