You misunderstand:
“To summarize: the Senate does not ratify treaties; the President does. Treaties, in the U. S. sense, are not the only type of binding international agreement. Congressional-Executive agreements and Sole Executive agreements may also be binding.
It is generally understood that treaties and Congressional-Executive agreements are interchangeable; Sole Executive agreements occupy a more limited space constitutionally and are linked primarily if not exclusively to the President’s powers as commander in chief and head diplomat.
Treaties and other international agreements are subject to the Bill of Rights. Congress may supersede a prior inconsistent treaty or Congressional-Executive agreement as a matter of U. S. law, but not as a matter of international law.
Courts in the United States use their powers of interpretation to try not to let Congress place the United States in violation of its international law obligations. A self-executing treaty provision is the supreme law of the land in the same sense as a federal statute that is judicially enforceable by private parties.
Even a non-self-executing provision of an international agreement represents an international obligation that courts are very much inclined to protect against encroachment by local, state or federal law.” i.e. the Budapest Memorandum:
The rest of the world thinks of a treaty as something the national leader can commit to. In the USA we have a constitution and Treaties must be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate. It is not binding on America if the Senate does not do so. The rest of the world is very aware of this.
We have no obligations to that corrupt little authoritarian country that has subverted DC for nearly a decade.
” Congress may supersede a prior inconsistent treaty or Congressional-Executive agreement as a matter of U. S. law, but not as a matter of international law.”
Dig deeper into that Cracker Jack box where you got your law degree. Congress can absolutely void ANY agreement the Executive branch makes with any foreign entity. There is no “international law” that stands above the US Congress.
[T]he United States publicly maintains that "the Memorandum is not legally binding", calling it a "political commitment".
Furthermore, the memorandum states quite clearly:
[The United States as a party to this agreement shall] "[s]eek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to... Ukraine if they 'should become a victim of an act of aggression'..."
The United States has reportedly done exactly that, and has therefore fulfilled the specific requirements of the agreement. Military intervention by an individual party, to enforce or punish violations of the agreement by other parties, is nowhere required or even contemplated...
;>)