> The promise was made

Not in the form in which binding, durable, heritable international commitments are made it was not.

Not even the people most committed to spinning the evidence in favor of Russia bother to claim that (which is good, because it would be obviously false), they just try to get people to ignore that,and pretend what would even by the most favorable interpretation of the evidence be private assurances were binding commitments in future governments of the state whose representatives made them, in radically changed circumstances, inheritable by a state that didn't exist as an independent subject of international law at the time they were given, applicable after the state they were given to ceased to exist by, primarily, the action of the entity claiming to exercise them.

And they go further, and make arguments that rely not only on them being still binding, but on violation of them being an act equivalent in international law to an actual or imminent attack justifying war against third parties who aren't even under any theory involved in the supposed agreement except possibly as a co-inheritor with Russia of the interests of the USSR.

> NATO expansion is a huge part of the current conflict, and it is a pity that it cannot be discussed without smears like yours.

This is a common talking point with no relevance to reality. This is a war for resources (Crimea and the Donbas), a demographic injection to prop up Russia's own dwindling population, and, at the very least, a land bridge and warm water ports. How does subjugating Ukraine stop NATO exactly? Especially when NATO rejected Ukraine's bid.

It's a fig leaf. Any scrutiny at all reveals the true face of this conflict.

NATO expansion is an argument, not a reason.

But even as an argument it conveniently denies self-determination, agency, hopes and dreams to the countries, nations and people who don't want to be ruled by post-soviet mafia.

I don't think the Guardian article supports your assertion that "several actors confirm it". It mentions that Kohl made a similar statement, not that Kohl was an "actor" in terms of the original "promise" or that he confirmed it was made.

Unfortunately these episodes of history currently sit in the crossfire of propaganda from both sides, some will claim it's current Russian propaganda to minimize its significance and the Russians will claim this is an outsized broken promise that excuses their behavior.

The US has been incapable of putting ourselves in the shoes of a has-been empire, so when Russia sees expansion as a threat, we can't fathom what their fuss is about. But if you look at it from Russia's perspective, as a post Soviet Empire that is in severe retreat and is beset on many fronts, one can begin to understand some of their PoV, especially given the Syria-Ukraine-Caucasus entanglement stoked by Obama. Obviously a cretin like Putin takes all this as personal affront on behalf of all Slavs and results in this disaster.

Exactly. It bothers me immensely that we cannot have an adult conversation about topics such as these, because people who only have a superficial understanding try to pick a certain phrase or argument as proof that you are on "the other side". It's actually part of the problem of why we cannot have reasonable public opinion a the moment, as journalists and intellectuals have also adopted this way of thinking.

It's not the US's fault that Russia's past imperial subjects are now seeking protection from Russia in NATO.

Parts of the US are able to put itself in those shoes. The DOS isn't staffed by morons, it fully understands why Russia felt threatened by encirclement, even if the press didn't.

It pursued that direction anyways, because what (aside from nuclear war) is the worst that could happen..?

(A full invasion of Ukraine, as it turns out is the worst thing that can happen - so far. But that's no sweat off the backs of anyone on this side of the Atlantic.)

I think those people exist, but they don't have much influence or defer to more bellicose factions within. Another ironically "great" example was the Iraq war. Who the hell let that go though and then not leak that the words coming out of the mouths of the higher ups were pure bulls--t. "Greeted with flowers, alright".

Now, where are these people, why don't they pipe up and tell us that they told the higher ups what would happen but got ignored? Why can't we be honest that we made a grave mistake in this case?

no more both-sides propaganda please. one side attacked and is committing genocidal destruction of Ukraine, not the so-called other side.

if all Russia wanted was Donbas they could just go here, take it, and eject the ethnic Ukrainians if they like, and steal the resources and territory instead of paying for them. Instead they go all-in on destroying as much of the country as possible before they most likely retreat to a relatively small region in the east, which I think was the original objective.

Russia chose to commit this massive crime, no one else.

I'm not excusing Russian atrocities. We're looking at what enabled this trajectory. Lack of introspection leads to more stupid actions. If France and Britain hadn't demanded the extraction of wealth from WWI losers, lots of things would have fallen differently in history. That does not in any way excuse any of the action taken by any of the actors who made their own choices.

But we have to be careful of what stages we are setting up. another example is the "Mujahudeen". Yes, convenient thorn in the Soviets' ambitions but they would come back to haunt us. It's still their fault for their acts of terror, but we also gave them "life" by setting up the stage for them.

I was very confused why Russia felt the need to meddle in US politics reading coverage of 2016.

If we look at the timeline, US signaling intent to expand nato lines up perfectly with Russia’s belligerence, and it’s not exactly subtle.

Putin more or less said “we won’t stand for this” at the time.

Perhaps it is a lack of empathy as implied by the parent comment, but that seems surprisingly oblivious.