Yes it did! Historical record, whther it was ‘floating’ or otherwise.
And in agreeing to dissolve the USSR, the Russians were promised that Nato would not expand it’s reach any further into Europe, an agreement which the West has since broken on multiple occasions.
Back to US insanity and lawlessness.
Because meanwhile, Spray-Tan Caligula is now considering intervening with a bombing run now during the demonstrations and the brutal Regime clamp down in Iran. That is highly likely going to be a disaster and not in more Iranian political freedom.
(The situation now in Iran is really fucking horrible, but I think few of us have belief that Trump sideshow-bombing Iran is going to end the Ayatollah regime and bring freedom to Iranians)
It’s quite possible that this kind of agression will strenghten the Iranian regime
The historical record shows that Russia never formally applied for either.
And also…
Fake news Western propaganda am I right @RedGedinLA ?
Out of curiosity, why do you think Ukraine applied/agreed to join NATO?
Okay, if you want to split hairs, but that was because they were told it was a waste of time, right? Russia tried consistently to join both but they were more useful as an enemy and justification for the trillions since spent on the military industrial complex. Once again, I’m not advocating for Russia, but just trying to offer some balance to what is always presented as a one-sided argument in the West.
Probably for the same reason all the other countries with a common border with Russia were invted to join.
and what was the reason?
Oh come on! All this piece of fudging does is confirm that right from the start Russia had concerns about Ukraine joining Nato and wanted to ban the possibility of US nukes in eastern Europe. Her argument is based on an order of events, the preposterous idea the Nato discussions only extended to reunified Germany and the fantasy that Nato ring-fencing Russia’s border was just an unavoidable coincidence. Not suprising it was from a UK government outpost like LSE.
For a whole range of reasons but that’s an entire essay and I really wasn’t planning for this to get so involved. I think it’s important to state that there are no ‘goodies and baddies’ in any geopolitics. It’s simplistic and naive. I’m sorry but I’m going to have to end this here for now because I’ve got a very time-consuming obsession with the secret rollout of Digital ID in the UK, which is something everyone should be concerned about. Not sure if there is a surveillance state thread on TAN? Cheers though.
in other words, you’ve dug a big hole for yourself here…
and your now running away…
Jog on…
There was an internal review of border patrol undertaken in 2014 which found 67 instances of officers deliberately stepping in front of vehicles so they could shoot the driver.
I need to check this, but guess who was a border force member back then?
Meanwhile, a bit of comedy to lighten the mood…
At last a bit of commonsense creeps in, thank you @Bekloppt!
If the fascist Trumphites try to influence a regime change in the UK. Then, i will go for guerilla warfare training. (O.k, i might buy some graffiti spray paint and spray it on every US owned building in the uk) 
My Dad had books on revolutions and independance movements from Algerian Independance, Vietnam, Cuba, Middle East, Asian and African subcontinent.
They’re already doing it Maria.
Food for thought… Cases can be checked online
From an actual lawyer… "There seems to be a lot of Keyboard attorneys online today. So, as an actual attorney, I’d like to cite actual law. The ICE officer in MN violated both protocol and case law. 1) officers are not allowed to fire into a moving vehicle 2) lethal force is not allowed to prevent someone from fleeing 3) case law is clear, an officer cannot intentionally place himself in front of a vehicle and then allege self defense At best, this officer acted with a reckless disregard for public safety and is guilty of negligent homicide. Federal agents do not have blanket immunity from state laws or criminal prosecution. They can be prosecuted by state authorities for violating state laws if their actions were unauthorized, unlawful, or unreasonable, even if they were on duty.
The concept governing this is called Supremacy Clause immunity. Federal agents are generally immune from state prosecution only if their actions were:
Authorized under federal law; and
“Necessary and proper” to fulfill their federal duties.
If a federal agent is charged in state court, they can petition to have their case “removed” to federal court. In federal court, the judge would then determine whether the agent’s actions met the “necessary and proper” standard. If the court finds the agent was acting within the reasonable confines of their duties, the state charges will be dismissed. If not, the state prosecution can proceed in federal court, applying state substantive law. It is unlikely any judge would find his behavior necessary and reasonable. The mere fact that no other officer present unholstered their weapon and appear shocked he fired towards them reinforces that fact.
Estate of Starks v. Enyart, 5 F.3d 230 (7th Cir. 1993)
Seventh Circuit – foundational caseFacts:
Officer stepped in front of a slowly moving vehicle and then shot the driver, claiming fear for his life.
Holding (paraphrased):
“An officer may not unreasonably create a physically threatening situation and then use deadly force to escape it.”
Adams v. Speers, 473 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2007) Ninth Circuit
Facts:
Officer jumped in front of a vehicle during a stop and then fired.
Holding:
An officer cannot provoke a confrontation and then rely on the danger they created to justify deadly force.
Key language:
The court emphasized that reasonableness includes the officer’s own tactical decisions leading up to the shooting.
Thompson v. Hubbard, 257 F.3d 896 (8th Cir. 2001)
Eighth Circuit
Key point:
The court rejected summary judgment for officers where evidence showed the officer moved into the vehicle’s path, creating the perceived threat.
Abraham v. Raso, 183 F.3d 279 (3d Cir. 1999)
Third Circuit
Facts:
Off-duty officer shot a fleeing driver.
Holding:
The court stressed that pre-seizure conduct matters and that officers cannot rely solely on the “split second” framing if their own actions escalated the situation.
Kirby v. Duva, 530 F.3d 475 (6th Cir. 2008)
Holding:
Deadly force may be unconstitutional where:
The officer fired into a moving vehicle
The officer could have stepped aside
The threat was self-created
The Sixth Circuit explicitly rejected the idea that a moving car automatically justifies gunfire.
Adams v. Speers, 473 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2007)
Holding:
An officer may not intentionally place himself in danger and then use deadly force to neutralize the danger he created — including firing into a vehicle.
The Ninth Circuit emphasized tactical disengagement as the constitutional expectation.
Training & Policy Alignment (Courts Care About This)
Many courts note that modern police training instructs:
Do not fire into moving vehicles
Do not use deadly force to stop a fleeing car
Disengage and contain instead
Courts treat violations of training as evidence of unreasonableness, even if not dispositive.
