The animating idea that Russians cannot trust the West is beside the point. By definition, nations have divergent cultures and interests and simply do not trust one another and cannot be expected to. Indeed, the better argument is that the West cannot trust Russia, especially Russia under Putin, a corrupt KGB thug whose rule has been marked by astonishing levels of corruption and murder that have reached into and alarmed Western Europe.
Moreover, in civil law and affairs between nations, there is a vast difference between statements of present intention or policy and binding contracts that are supported by mutual promises. Especially between nations, mere statements of intention or policy by a government or public official are without binding effect when time passes or circumstances change, and such promises are categorically not binding on future governments.
In business, if you want a binding promise that lasts and can be enforced, you negotiate a written contract and get it signed by all the parties. Similarly, if a country wants a binding agreement with another country, it negotiates one and gets it reduced to a written deal, giving up something to get what it wants. And when a company or a country ceases to exist, so also do any promises to it.
So, whatever Jim Baker said or did not say to the USSR about the Bush administrations intentions, he never made a binding promise that would carry over to future administrations. And the USSR being defunct, today's Russia cannot in any event claim the benefit of any promises or agreements but must negotiate them anew.
“So, whatever Jim Baker said or did not say to the USSR about the Bush administrations intentions, he never made a binding promise that would carry over to future administrations.”
Unfortunately for Ukrainians, they will no longer have a country due to Americans thinking they can out-lawyer Russia.
To your point where is the written agreement that NATO would not expand, and even if such a handshake agreement existed Russian actions to enforce its control over areas would void that.
The idea that an expansion of NATO was a threat to Russia has not been proven out in actions, and as putins failed invasion to satisfy his wants and desires has proven, such an attack would have lead to nothing but death and destruction
Prior to the invasion and prior to 2014 invasion Russia was trading and beginning to prosper, well at least white Russia was.
It is sad to see Russia and China going down this 1930s path of “greatness” through military actions and threats. Both countries are well situated to prosper within their own borders and as Japan learned prosperity comes from peace and trade not war and conquest
Lastly just look at the ever changing justifications Putin has given. Their are as many as Macgregor’s predictions for the fall of Kiev