There possibly was an "understanding" with the USSR not to expand eastward when the Soviet union was around but when the USSR dissolved that "promise" made no sense anymore.

National Security Archive at George Washington University:

Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner

You're welcome.

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017...

All of your comments are suspiciously related to US foreign policy issues btw ;)

I want to see more countries join NATO. NATO is just a cool idea. Having the militaries from 31 countries all under one command structure. I genuinely would like to see them try.

I don't understand why people think this. NATO does not mandate a unified command structure. France pulled out in 1966. It didn't rejoin until the 21st century.

I just assumed that's one of the things NATO did. I haven't actually read the treaty. I probably should.

I don't get why this line is repeated so much. Verbal agreements and reassurances in the realm of foreign policy are essentially worthless, especially when you're dealing with democratically elected leaders. Unless you have a formal agreement the next president or prime minister has to abide by, there is no continuity.

This expansion argument also ignores that Eastern European countries are joining NATO of their own accord.

Btw Russia and the US also signed the Budapest memorandum to respect Ukraine's sovereignty.

But the president of the US doesn't have the power to make treaties with another nation. See the league of nations for an important example of that. So that treaty is also worthless when it comes to the US.

So if a verbal agreement is worthless & a treaty is worthless, how does one negotiate with the US?

I'm unsure how France's presidential system works and what authority he may have.