This is a very well known agreement. Search for writing on HW Bush's Secretary of State James Baker agreeing to Gorbachev that NATO would expand "not another inch" eastward. Much has been written about this, and it is considered ~first principles~ level knowledge on the topic of Russia/Ukraine. Putin came of political age when that agreement was reneged, and it is speculated that this is weighs heavily on his list of grievances with the US.

The absolute hubris to declare this "first principles level knowledge on the topic of Russia/Ukraine" and telling people to catch up on it first and yet get it clearly wrong making false statements. Gorbachev is literally on record saying there was NOT an agreement. You've barely made it past complete ignorance on this history.

> This is a very well known agreement.

It's a very well known non-agreement.

> James Baker agreeing to Gorbachev that NATO would expand "not another inch" eastward

That's...not how binding international agreements are formed.

Your false equivalence is around Russia INVADING a country after saying it was just doing military exercises.

It is amusing to hear that in a comment chain about how US told it wouldn't expand to the East yet it did and how the current situation is a direct consequence of those talks.

> how the current situation is a direct consequence of those talks.

Putin just said it's a consequence of Lenin creating the fake entity of Ukraine on territory that should be Russian exacerbated by Stalin transferring additional territory that should be Russian to the fake entity of Ukraine.

Sounds like Russia (or at least Putin, who definitely has a l’etat, c’est moi thing going on), thinks the fundamental problem is the fall of the Russian Empire, not NATO, which is just an impediment to restoring the Empire.

How has the "US" expanded to the East? The US is bound by shorelines. I think your slip of the tongue is revealing of the propaganda against NATO. It's a membership driven club unlike actual invasion and annexation.

Sovereign countries choose to join the club. Besides, why would it be amusing for Russia to punish Ukraine for (perceived) grievances against the US?

>That's...not how binding international agreements are formed.

Thank you, this is exactly the point I arrived at as well. It's an admission that the primary tool of the US State Department is to make friendly, reasonable verbal agreements in front of the press and public, then do the dirty move they really wanted to do when the news cycle has moved past. This maintains the appearance to the US public that their foreign policy is always just, and never cynical or deceitful.

can you please show me this agreement ?