I don't get why such commitments were made in the first place. Why is it OK for Russia to be dictating what sovereign countries can or cannot do within their own borders? Especially now, given their behaviour on the world stage the West shouldn't pay slightest heed to Russia's demands. Why is it always the liberal democracies that need to bend to the will of the dictators? How about for once we just say "no" to a tyrant?<p>Also in case you're going to pull out some kind of whataboutism with regards to America's behaviour on the world stage, please spare me. America's no saint but if you're equating its shenanigans with Russia's you have no clue what you're talking about. I grew up behind the iron curtain so I experienced the "Russian Mir" first hand. NATO is not encroaching on Russia. It's the countries bordering Russia that are running the fuck away from its awful embrace. No country that joined NATO after 1989 did it because they were being coerced. They all _begged_ to be admitted and made a lot of sacrifices to get in. Dwell on that before you give credence to any Russia apologetics.
Like a lot of Romanians, I have a very dim view of Mircea Geoană as a statesman or diplomat. The fact that he somehow became NATO Deputy Secretary General only reinforces my suspicion that NATO is quasi-irrelevant as an institution distinct of American interests.<p>NATO (Stoltenberg, Geoană etc.) will act strictly the way America wants them to act. For now it seems America prefers escalation, so the war will go on...