She also admitted that when she didn't support Ukraine's accession to NATO in 2008, it was because she knew Russia would consider it a declaration of war and they needed time to prepare Ukraine for that war. IOW, they were never interested in a mutually acceptable security agreement with Russia and this is just one more example of their utter falsity.

Here's how Norwegian history professor Glenn Diesen describes it:

It seems to me NATO tends to pursue something of a salami tactic, making these gradual incremental changes that allow them to say one thing but do something else. You maintain the rhetoric of peace but aren't willing to make commitments into the future.

One of the problems is the lack of a European security structure that provides security guarantees to Russia. In the 90s it wasn't controversial to point out that expanding NATO would be threatening to Russia. But yet you saw NATO proposing this Partnership for Peace, it was supposed to be an alternative to NATO expansion but instead it became a preparation, essentially aligning the militaries which made it easier to expand.

Then later they began saying "what is permanent? what is a substantial combat force?" Now with the missile bases in Poland and Romania we can say this agreement meant nothing, clearly this is not only for missile defense.

In 2006 or 2007, Condoleeza Rice made the argument saying "it's just 10 interceptor missiles, Russia is being paranoid if they're worried about that." Then within 3 or 4 years they were talking about 500 missiles so this gradual, incremental expansion. If you're planning to do this in the future you don't want any security architecture that constrains you.