You are a liar.

Anyone who followed our conversations mentioned and went to the links knows it and I can't be bothered wasting time on you.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Anyone who dismisses things in that way, through the use of ad hominems, destroys their argument completely. Unfortunately, it's your standard response when cornered, which results in many of your opinions being shown as baseless, recycled nonsense gleaned from dubious corners of the internet.

If you have evidence to support your assertion that Ukraine prior to 2014 was among the most corrupt countries, then it would benefit everyone to see it, and decide how valid it is.

As to the other claim, about Nato promising Russia not to expand, it is very easy to debunk it. No need to retrace past conversations. Just read these:-

[Link]

[Link]

[Link]

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (12 Jun 2022 3.23pm)

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

You are right. It is very apparent. It all comes from you.

Everything in the link you provided is dealt with, and debunked, in the articles I linked to. Semi-private conversations, always capable of misinterpretation, or multiple interpretation, don't amount to more than a puff of smoke. Minuting them for historians may make for interesting reading, but are nothing more than that.

Formal, legal agreements, hammered out by specialist negotiators, are the only things that matter. They don't exist. You don't make legal agreements over a dinner.

No promises were given. Those who say otherwise, whether they are Putin or posters on the Hol, are liars.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

That you believe all your opinions are the truth doesn't mean you don't lie. All it means is you are self-righteous. Plenty of people who know your on-line persona would recognise that in you.

Just take a look at the known facts. Firstly, no-one but Nato speaks for Nato. That James Baker and other western leaders made statements and exchanged memos during the period of German re-unification doesn't make policy, nor set things in stone. The situation was still developing. The Russian Federation didn't even exist, so giving it "assurances" is an impossibility. The people involved were all politicians trying to get a momentous change over the line. It would not be surprising if they used nuanced language, or were "economical with the truth" in doing so. Nato has, itself, stated that it never made the alleged commitment.

Secondly, what does "Nato moving east" actually mean? Nato has no territory. Its members do. It cannot "move east". It can only admit new members to the east of the current ones. Why would it do that? Nato is wholly defensive. Neither it, nor any of its members, have ever expressed a desire to take territory from anyone, including Russia. The purpose of new members joining has been to bolster their defences against any attack from elsewhere, especially from Russia. If such a threat ceased to exist, Russia disbanded its army and created DMZs, then Nato's role would match it in proportion. Win, win. For non aggressors!

As Nato opens its doors to any new member who shares their values and commitments, it would be illogical to close them to a country who meets the requirements, just because someone who isn't a member requests them not to. I don't believe Nato would ever make such a commitment. Nor do I believe any politician, or group of politicians, could commit it. Re-assuring a Gorbachev and giving him a position he can sell at home is a different matter.

This is just propaganda by Russia to try to justify its own position. Nato poses no threat to Russia itself. The threat it poses is to Russia's ability to continue its own expansion west, into the former territories it lost. Losses that still wrankle with people like Putin. Unfortunately, the right have swallowed this propaganda and are regurgitating it along with the bile they hold for western foreign policy and Nato.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

None of us do. Including you. Nato does that itself, so I suggest you read and pay heed to its website and the statements it makes there.

That's the bottom line for everyone. The problem is that there is a huge script to be written before we reach that bottom line. The issue is not the destination, but the safest route to get there, without the journey coming to a disastrous early conclusion.

I have a lot of time for Christopher Steele, ex MI5 and Russian expert, who obviously enjoys strong contacts within the security services of both the UK and USA. I suggest you follow him on Twitter. He is convinced, via the security services, that Putin is being treated for cancer and is anticipated to become incapacitated within 6 months, necessitating a change at the top in Russia. I have no more evidence than those assertions, but Steele has been right often enough in the past to be taken seriously. If he is right, this is both an opportunity and a danger. Finding the balance between the carrot and the stick is never easy, but must be especially challenging at the moment

This is completely wrong. Nato is unlike any other organisation and especially unlike Russia.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Actually, I have got a lot done. Cleaned the car, Tcut a few scratches, jet washed some garden furniture, cut the lawn, walked the dog and cooked dinner. Got to rest my legs these days from time to time, and that's when I catch up on the various platforms I monitor, this one included. I always check to see if there's any transfer news before reading the latest attempts at an epistle to the Gods of right wing thought, to be found here.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.