Peter, I want to ask you a question generally unrelated to this article, but I am posing it anyway because you are one of the smartest and most informed writers here, and you also respond to virtually every request. Something I and others thank you for.
We see so many people "justify" Putin's Ukraine military operation because of the verbal agreement that the US would not support any expansion of NATO into the former Warsaw Pact countries. Now if this was a verbal agreement between Putin and an American presidential administration, which apparently is now considered the consensus, don't you think that Putin certainly knew such a verbal agreement could not be considered binding beyond that particular American administration's tenure?
I mean this seems kinda obvious to many of us, but is never mentioned by those Putin apologists, much less the anti-USA crowd, and is so often fed into the discussions as some kind of Binding Decision, that it renders the discussions disingenuous. Just would like to hear your expert analysis on this, or even a short comment, especially relative to other similar decisions.
I am not defending the NATO expansion, or criticizing Putin's concerns, or even recognizing the validity of claiming the US is responsible for the 'coup" that seemingly led to these long running hostilities, a subject, another 'consensus,' that is quite debatable, especially considering the results.
This is a very thought provoking article.
Peter, I want to ask you a question generally unrelated to this article, but I am posing it anyway because you are one of the smartest and most informed writers here, and you also respond to virtually every request. Something I and others thank you for.
We see so many people "justify" Putin's Ukraine military operation because of the verbal agreement that the US would not support any expansion of NATO into the former Warsaw Pact countries. Now if this was a verbal agreement between Putin and an American presidential administration, which apparently is now considered the consensus, don't you think that Putin certainly knew such a verbal agreement could not be considered binding beyond that particular American administration's tenure?
I mean this seems kinda obvious to many of us, but is never mentioned by those Putin apologists, much less the anti-USA crowd, and is so often fed into the discussions as some kind of Binding Decision, that it renders the discussions disingenuous. Just would like to hear your expert analysis on this, or even a short comment, especially relative to other similar decisions.
I am not defending the NATO expansion, or criticizing Putin's concerns, or even recognizing the validity of claiming the US is responsible for the 'coup" that seemingly led to these long running hostilities, a subject, another 'consensus,' that is quite debatable, especially considering the results.