people to simply take Putin at his word. Maybe she's written more extensively to make a case beyond "Putin said so" elsewhere. I can't find the link right now, but over the last few days I did read an article which attempted to suss out the basis for Putin's (now Candace's) claim. I believe it was based on a supposedly extensive study of both official and personal communiques between Soviet/Russian and NATO negotiators during the Gorbachev regime. They did conclude that while nothing was ever binding, suggestions were made that in exchange for a reunified Germany's continued membership in NATO, officials indicated that NATO would not spread eastward. By the end of the '90s, it was in fact expanding eastward.

I actually do think NATO got out over its skis in its euphoria over winning the Cold War in the '90s, and into the '00s. So, I do think that many NATO leaders, with the benefit of hindsight, would have been a little more circumspect about such things in the '90s and early '00s if they could turn back the clock.

But I can't find Owens making any case beyond "trust Putin!" Because it really is't all that cut and dried. NATO may have ignored informal promises some think it made back in the early '90s, but lord knows there's no shortage of bad actions coming from Russia, especially under Putin, during all this time.

I'd think we'd all support the notion of not giving Russia a veto over who can and can't join the Atlantic alliance. But at the same time, we should take geopolitical realities about who has been in Russia's historical sphere of influence seriously.


[Post edited by hoolstoptheheels at 02/22/2022 3:17PM]