comment: >
context: Russia garanties Ukraine territorial integrity in 5 different agreement, they violated all of them.
  That's the Kreml  usual behavior, except when they forced to act otherwise >
  
  Russia Violate and Agreement?!?  Never!
  ^^^^/s >
  
  It would be more remarkable to hear about an agreement that Russia honored...  /S >
  
  I hear crickets...  🦗 🦗 🦗 >
  
  Yes, they stopped when the war started they were scheduled to try and start it back up but Russia wanted the US to commit to other things just to resume inspections and the meeting never happened. Probably wont until the war is either over or, diplomatic tensions are reduced which there has been some mixed signals on >
  
  The inspections has to be mutual, but Russian side is unable to conduct inspections over US, because a flight from Russia to US has to land in Iceland to refuel, but Iceland refuses due to sanctions, and US are playing "Its not us, it's them!" and "Not our problem!" game >
  
  Which I’m sure there is a diplomatic solution to, if only Russia were interested in diplomacy. >
  
  Nukes, the circular reasoning weapon >
  
  Of course they are.
  It’s Russia.
  Did we expect honesty out of Putins empire? >
  
  Breaking - US claims Russia has weapon of mass destruction >
  
  Condi Rice and Dick Cheney back at it again! >
  
  Can someone explain this in Naruto terms >
  
  Hidden Rain Village won't let the Hidden Leaf Village inspect their tailed beast per agreements between all villages with tail beasts. >
  
  This 👆 >
  
  fear mongering. >
  
  “Nuclear powers do not lose major conflicts on which their fate depends” 
  I wonder what the US will do when Putin nuke Ukraine. >
  
  Russia will do whatever Russias gonna do. The world won’t kneel to them just because they’re ready to risk it all >
  
  Honest question: In your opinion should we keep pressing and risk an all out nuclear war? >
  
  In your opinion, do you think it would be better to let Russia invade the rest of the world and all live under Russian rule? >
  
  I can't explain my opinion in detail now but I would wait for that to happen before even thinking of using nukes, I would never start a WW3 for Ukraine as much as I want to see them win the war and see Russia lose. >
  
  Give them an inch and they will take a mile >
  
  "If Komrade Biden want inspect our nukes, we'll send them over right away" >
  
  Hmmmmm! ELI5 >
  
  
  the prime condition set by Russia was that NATO never approach former USSR border.
  
  Which treaty is this? I'd like to have a look at the text of this document and who signed it >
  
  I know that but I was hoping that this was a teachable moment for /u/mindshift42 >
  
  Read the edit. Get comfy, the source is a long read. >
  
  I'm am familiar with the subject, I was hoping to spur you into realizing the error of your statement on your own. 
  A cursory reading of your source shows that even being generous to the Russian position, they have absolutely no evidence or verifiable documentation of such an agreement ever being enforced or agreed upon. The argument in support of Russia leans into arguing for the validity of 'informal agreements' and implied assurances.
  Gorbachev confirmed that the context of the discussion on NATO expansion was entirely centered on the territory of East Germany.
  
  “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.”
  
  Even if your angle was based in truth, there are so many reasons to discount this supposed "agreement";
  The idea that NATO would no longer need to accept new members was based on the premise that such a security alliance would no longer be necessary in a post Cold War Europe which was expected to unify it's cooperative interests. Yet Russia never made necessary strides towards a politically unified Europe and in fact continued conflicts with it's neighbors and dragging it's feet on removing it's troops from post-soviet countries. A 'constrained NATO' never emerged because Russia never began behaving as a cooperative actor and continued to assert a sphere of influence over Eastern Europe that violated the sovereignty of other countries.
  Russia violated the "spirit" of any hypothetical 'informal agreement' themselves by never moving away from an imperialist stance and never honoring their implied assurances towards building a cooperative Europe.
  No new members were admitted to NATO until 1999, by which point Russia had troops stationed in Georgia and Moldova that it had made an agreement to remove which it ultimately violated.
  When Poland began openly discussion joining NATO, Yeltsin affirmed Polish sovereignty to join and said he "respected" the decision. He invoked no supposed agreement on non-expansion. He also affirmed support of the rights enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act.
  All of this is besides the fact that holding the USSR and Russia to account for all of their own lies made in non-binding statements would mean they never would've deserved honesty from NATO in the first place.
  Even furthermore; if some kind of binding agreement had actually been blatantly violated by the US, it STILL would in no way justify Russia victimizing other sovereign countries nor would it make the US culpable for Russian aggression >
  
  And this is the doorway in. >
  
  Doorway in to…what? >
  
  WW3 get your ass ready to be drafted and shipped out >
  
  There’s no draft if nukes fly >
  
  No that won’t happen I mean that’s what everyone is saying so they must be right? >
  
  Things would be much worse for all concerned had the US actually declared war on Russia. MAD works both ways, but the Russians seem to have forgotten that key lesson. >
  
  I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact we are currently fighting in a war with them through another military? >
  
  If we were fighting a war with them, they'd know. >
  
  Exactly