You don't get to determine what I think. If I were to make a verbal promise, I will treat it like a contract.

Deciding what is going to be binding on competing sovereigns? You get that shit in writing.

Even then it's between sovereigns, so writing doesn't mean shit either. Can't sue a sovereign unless they consent to the process.

and how does that apply to International treaties, with everything in writing, as they're discussing?

I never said I get to do that. I was just telling you my perception of you and what you say. But apparently that triggered you.



I never said they shouldn't have gotten it in writing. I am just pointing out that you are being stupid when you implied that promises only mean something when they are committed in writing. If you don't like that, then maybe consider not saying stupid things in the future.

I don't claim to have ideas for how international treaties are carried out. I was merely pointing out that santara is being stupid. He implied that promises only mean something when they are committed down in paper. That is a very stupid thing to say.

ignoring all context is stupid.

I haven't ignored anything but thanks for your opinion.

u ignored the context because u dont know how treaties work, that doesnt change that the discussion was about on paper treaties, and on that paper eastern expansion wasnt included.

This discussion is not solely about paper treaties. It's about the promises that were presumably made to Russia by Nato.

promises aren't treaties.

You are welcome.