I like how you keep using the word "promise."

It wasn't in writing, therefore it wasn't a promise. At best it was an assurance, kind of like the assurance Russia gave Ukraine to respect Ukraine's sovereignty if they gave up nukes...

I am sorry that you think a promise is only a promise if it's in writing.

And I'm sorry that all context of the Cold War is lost on you.

But you do admit that you think a promise can be broken if it's not in writing, right?

It wasn't a promise. Keep mischaracterizing what happened between Secretary of State and the Foreign Minister vs what happened between the heads of state though, it's pretty FSB of you.

No. Two countries can ALWAYS break promises as much as they want. There is no mechanism to holding countries to account on the international stage outside of military or economic might.

enlighten me: who promised what exactly? i can claim you promised to give me all your nerdcoins earlier in a pm - that alone doesn't make it true though. still, you did, so please keep your word and give me your 77.84fg. you aren't a weasel, right?

if there was any kind of official promise, there should be a record of it. did stoltenberg promise putin? did solana promise yeltsin? did ismay promise krushchev? how long do you think a verbal, undocumented promise between two individuals representing vast political entities should be binding, regardless of any shifts in the political landscape? what was the trade-off? what did russia promise in return? did they keep their promise?

I never said it was or wasn't a promise. I was just having issues when you implied that a promise that isn't committed in writing can be broken.

Promises are basis for expectation not obligation.

You're welcome again.

I know they can. I am saying they shouldn't.

Nice to see that you think countries' leaders should be able to break promises made to one another. That's the perfect recipe for fostering trust and cooperation and world-peace, right?