Everything you said above on the subject of NATO's eastward expansion is a lie.
Actually no, it's not. Unless the transcripts released by the soviet union are a lie, which I don't think you think considering you've just quoted them:
It seems that Gorbachev already had memory problems at the time of the interview you quoted.
Here is a transcript of his conversation with James Baker on February 9, 1990, I will quote a fragment of the conversation.
NATO is the mechanism for securing the U.S. presence in Europe. If NATO is liquidated, there will be no such mechanism in Europe. We understand that not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.
Since then, there have been five rounds of NATO's eastward expansion.
Here's a link to the entire transcript:
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16117-document-06-record-conversation-betweenNote what Baker said directly following the part you quoted:
We believe that consultations and discussions within the framework of the “two + four” mechanism should guarantee that Germany’s unification will not lead to NATO’s military organization spreading to the east.
6These are our thoughts. Perhaps a better way can be found. As of yet, we do not have the Germans’ agreementto this approach. I explained it to Genscher and he only said that he will think it over. As for [French Foreign Minister Roland] Dumas, he liked the idea. Now I have given an account of this approach to you. I repeat, maybe something much better can be created, but we have not been able to do that yet.
So is the transcript a lie?
Because they were clearly discussing Germany like I claimed (and you claim is a lie) and they were clearly not making any sort of formal agreement like I claimed (and you claim is a lie). They were clearly discussing a possible agreement that could be made, openly pondering the possibility that maybe a different agreement might be better, but not actually making one.