https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16119-document-08-letter-...
There is reputable source mentioning when during a negotiation, the US promised in return for a unified Germany there would be no eastward NATO expansion.
The argument you probably heard is that this was not a legally binding agreement. However, between sovreign nations, there is no superior authority by which you can determine what is legal or not, there is no rule of law to govern the world, international law boils down to agreements between sovreign nations and while this was not a formal treaty signed on paper it is dishonest to say that a promise made in public by an official representative of the US and NATO is non-binding. If you make a verbal agreement in any other aspect of law and choose to dishonor that agreement, so long as there is provable documentation of your agreement, you are still found liable right? This is the case in just about any country because it is aligned with a basic principle of justice: your word is your bond.
> You're being downvoted because you're perpetuating Russian lies and false perspectives.
Please sir/madam, attack my arguments all you want but don't attack my character or intent or downvote me based on false assumptions like that. It goes against the spirit of HN to discourage honest and sincere attempt at discourse like this.
I do not know or care if part of what I said aligns with what Russians are saying. My argument is not correct or incorrect because of what Russians think. I provided a rational explanation of my reasoning which you are free to attack. I do not support Russia or their invasions or Putin or Trump or whatever parisan boogeyman you can think of. I made my argument as an individual observing in my limited capacity the facts at hand for which I am glad to be corrected. Please don't attack or misrepresent my character or intent.