Talk:Controversy in Russia regarding the legitimacy of eastward NATO expansion

Name of this article

So while the AfD was closed with no consensus, I think we had consensus to change the name of this article. I propose: Eastward expansion of NATO and welcome alternative suggestions, edits. CT55555 (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. This would change the topic of the article too much. Super Ψ Dro 20:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

"Eastward expansion of NATO" on German Wikipedia: de:NATO-Osterweiterung Txkk (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Name and other bits

Russian article translated and basically Putin and Kremlin propaganda, the whole article is biased, don't get me wrong it has some good bits, however, totally biased and badly structured. Rename to something like "Russian views on the expansion of NATO", then the lead can say how the views have changed and been politicized. i.e. it was not a concern or an issue when the two "states" bordered each other, German reunification brought the subject into view, specific agreements re GDR only was discussed and parts were formally agreed e.g. written down, signed and promulgated, the USSR collapsed (despite German dm loans), views changed. Then sections detailing 1 Background 2 Post Reunification of Germany 3. Putin weaponizing of the same. Note a lot of "Genscher" currently on the article, and he did not have any authority to sign or agree anything orally or otherwise, he could discuss, cajole, encourage and suggest, further his and Kohl main aim was always reunify Germany, and neither had any real say over what NATO would do post this and he did not have the foresight to envisage the complete collapse of the failed state of USSR and its consequences in 2022 in Ukraine, further II, Russia and subsequently CIS agreed all Sovereign States had the right to sign their own security agreements, not mentioned at all, further III, East and Eastwards used so often and misses out the German bit and makes it highly misleading, further IV, 2+4 was a West German idea not US, I could go on... the whole thing needs rewriting. 2404:4408:638C:5E00:C0E6:3BE3:959C:FF87 (talk) 10:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

for context and reference to add to this article re GDR and promises made specific to reunification https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/germany-s-unlikely-diplomatic-triumph-an-inside-look-at-the-reunification-negotiations-a-719848.html for official NATO responses to many of the issues raised on the article https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_111767.htm, I will try to co-opt some of the refs onto what I amended/added later today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:4408:638C:5E00:C0E6:3BE3:959C:FF87 (talk) 11:02, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Please review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2404:4408:638C:5E00:7978:741F:E0A5:2787#Urgent

While I highly considering reverting this bad revert again, and subjecting Mellk to 3rr, other comrades may join the fray, hence help needed urgently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:4408:638C:5E00:7978:741F:E0A5:2787 (talk) 07:44, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

the most important the nato russia founding act from 1997 is miss here.

this 1997 contract make all other stuff that is tell before obsolete. here can read the original contract that russia confirm to allow east extension . https://www.nato.int/cps/su/natohq/official_texts_25468.htm in link respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all states and their inherent right to choose the means to ensure their own security, the inviolability of borders and peoples' right of self-determination as enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act and other OSCE documents;. so add this to wikipedia maybe name the wohle article russias wrong view and what they ignore Wiuser4711 (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Baker's supposed "not one inch" statement

In order to help make this article more properly encyclopedic, since it has been widely covered (and is often used as a defense for Russia's current invasion of Ukraine), shouldn't James Baker's supposed "not one inch" statement be mentioned in the text of this article, if only briefly? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

What a lot of Waffle to avoid admitting that the West lied to Russia

Here is the source from The National Security Archive, Suite 700, Gelman Library, The George Washington University, 2130 H Street, NW, Washington, D.C., 20037, Phone: 202/994-7000, Fax: 202/994-7005

I quote: "U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University. The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels."

Keep on reading Wikipedian clowns.

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early 2403:6200:8856:F4D5:3CB7:6257:BD89:8631 (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Suggested rename

The only reason this is a 'controversy' is because of bad faith framing by the Russians. Can more neutral language, also fitting in with the NPOV standard, be used? 70.31.214.43 (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)