“It is not a treaty. It was never presented to the US Senate for ratification so not binding on the US. Plus, it was a Bill Clinton promise, which makes it doubly worthless.”
Nonetheless, it WAS a signed agreement - signed by the Brits, the Americans, and the Russians.
If you really want to nitpick about it not being ratified by the Senate and therefore not being binding, perhaps you can remind the hard-of-thinking vatnik retard fan club contingent of faux conservatives posting here (from St Petersburg in all probability) that
1. the exact same argument therefore applies WITH BELLS ON to the “never even made it into a first draft let alone a signed agreement” stuff about James Baker SUGGESTING NATO expansion into the SURVIVING USSR and SURVIVING WARSAW PACT is even less enforceable.
2. And, logically, the agreement Yanukovych signed in Moscow in December 2013 without telling even Prime Minister Azarov, that turned Maidan into a full blown civil war in the Donbas (and which resulted in the Azarov government collapse!) is ALSO not binding, because Yanukovych was compelled by their Constitution to put the PROPOSAL from the Russians to the Rada for ratification BEFORE signing it. And he didn’t.
Both interesting quotes confirm your comment:
1st- pg #9
“One of the major aims of multilateral treaty negotiation is to ensure that all state party to the negotiations reach a common understanding of the purpose and goals of the treaty. IN THIS WAY, MULTILATERAL TREATY NEGOTIATION IS AS MUCH ABOUT INTERNATIONAL NORM CONSTRUCTION AS IT IS ABOUT THE MUTUAL ASSUMPTION OF LEGAL OBLIGATIONS. Under this view, one of the very purposes of the treaty is to establish consensus about the ideals contained in the treaty. Indeed, the reason that some countries sign multilateral treaties is to gain assurance that other countries are committed to the same goals.”
2nd- pg # 11
“The “advice and consent” language of the Constitution suggests that the Senate should have some role in negotiating treaties. However, the notion that the Senate could ASSIST in treaty negotiation was briefly tested and quickly rejected by President Washington. After the initial failed involvement of the Senate in treaty negotiation, the practice of sole negotiation of treaties by the executive developed. Treaty negotiation became associated with the President’s power to conduct foreign relations. While the President is now the exclusive negotiator of treaties, in practice the executive branch often consults with Congress about ongoing multilateral treaty negotiations and the potential ramifications of contemplated treaties. At times, disputes have arisen between Congress and the President regarding the effect of conflicting presidential and senatorial interpretations of a treaty during its negotiation stages. However, the President’s monopoly on treaty negotiation has never been seriously questioned.”
https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1227&context=law_lawreview
“If you really want to nitpick about it not being ratified by the Senate and therefore not being binding,”
It is not a nitpick, it is our law. Do you know, here on this forum we take our Constitution very seriously. As for your point 1, not ratified by the Senate and a dead letter. For 2, that’s a real nitpick and 2 foreign countries. Nothing to do with the USA.