I am referring to the 1997 Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation. It was signed in May 1997 during NATO summit in Paris. At the next summit in July, the first former Warsaw Pact countries were invited into NATO. Official negotiations began in September.
I see no conflicts with commonly accepted definitions of conspiracy theory: "a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators" (Merriam-Webster).
How did former Warsaw Pact countries end up in NATO?
According to conventional understanding, former Warsaw Pact countries seeked political, economic and military security through cooperation in international organizations ranging from Council of Europe to NATO.
According to the conspiracy theory, NATO and Russia made a secret deal to divide Europe, but the USA did not keep their side of the deal, intentionally misled Russia and forced Warsaw Pact countries into NATO in order to encircle, attack and destroy Russia.
So ... again, you're splitting hairs here. And then some.
Official "invitations" to the first round countries (PL, CZ, SK, HU) were issued around 1997 -- but that's the last step in the process. Official "talks" began much sooner. Already the formation of Visegrád Group in 1991 (whose purpose was largely to get these countries ready to integrate into the EU and NATO).
Anyway by 1993 talk of these countries joining NATO was already all over the news (NYT: "Yeltsin 'Understands' Polish Bid for a Role in NATO").
So right there -- you're way off base. The Founding Act itself it pretty long-winded, but I'm not seeing any text that "greenlights" NATO expansion (other than by simply not mentioning the topic).
As to conspiracy theories: the whole point is, what you were referring to was a certain line of (dubious) argumentation or reasoning -- "relying on snippets of facts". Which is certainly very often an aspect of conspiracy theories, but nothing to do with the key substance of the term.
No one (except fully deluded Russian apologists by this point) believes in that particular theory you cite. I certainly don't, and don't feel I need to respond to any ridiculous insinuations that I do.
Anyway, look -- you're certainly quite adept yourself at pulling up snippets of fact. But across the board -- I'm just finding your thinking to be rather muddled; you extremify and hyperbolize a lot; and that you're just not seeing the forest for the trees (in addition to getting a lot of the "trees" themselves wrong). And as a result, this discussion just isn't very productive.
So I'm going to have to bow out at this point, and let you hash these topics over in the privacy of your own thoughts. Which is a pity, sort of (since it seems we would probably agree on a lot of basic things about this conflict that other people seem to be horribly confused about -- such as who the aggressor is, and why they started it).
>> Official "invitations" to the first round countries (PL, CZ, SK, HU) were issued around 1997 -- but that's the last step in the process.
Not the last step at all. In July 1997, NATO invited Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary to accession talks, to be correct. Talks began in September and took until 1999 to conclude. Full membership was achieved only in March 1999. Invitation to accession talks is by no means a formality or a last step.
>> Anyway by 1993 talk of these countries joining NATO was already all over the news (NYT: "Yeltsin 'Understands' Polish Bid for a Role in NATO").
... and that was considered as far-fetched as Ukraine's ambitions towards EU and NATO membership were in 2021. Something that everyone politely nodded to, but very few believed would happen in any meaningful timeframe. Russian army was still in Poland in 1993. Poland was in a socio-economic disaster then. Energy crisis, insane inflation and organized crime, inability to even pay government employees' wages, let alone participate in international organizations as an equal. NATO membership and American nuclear umbrella were mythical dreams at that time, often ridiculed in the press, as you will discover if you dig deeper into old newspapers. The tone changed during accession talks when it began to look like entry into NATO was really going to happen.
>> The Founding Act itself it pretty long-winded, but I'm not seeing any text that "greenlights" NATO expansion (other than by simply not mentioning the topic).
From the treaty: "To achieve the aims of this Act, NATO and Russia will base their relations on a shared commitment to the following principles: /.../
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;"
NATO established this clear understanding with Russia in writing before anyone was invited to accession talks.
>> But across the board -- I'm just finding your thinking to be rather muddled, and that you're just not seeing the forest for the trees (in addition to getting a lot of the "trees" themselves wrong).
The only ones trying to muddy things are those who ignore a decade-long political process in European politics and its huge bureaucratic trail, and try to give a simple alternative explanation that hinges on a handful of out-of-context quotes from Baker and Genschler, because there is nothing else to back it up. It's like quoting some overly alarmist NASA memo questioning radiation shielding of Apollo spacecraft, and using that to "prove" that the Moon landings never happened - ignoring the immense work that 400 000 people and countless institutions and companies all across the world put into it over a decade, and all the trails they left behind.
You have to throw away a decade worth of European diplomacy to subscribe to the Russian talking point about broken promises and encirclement.
Which can't possibly be the CFE - so which treaty (and which specific provisions of that treaty) are you referring to?
Your notion of "conspiracy theory" is plainly at odds with the commonly accepted definition of the term, BTW. But we'll move past that for now.