The US is "Agreement-Incapable"
The Unites States is an unreliable rogue state, having shown time and time again that its word cannot be trusted.
In view of what will probably be a year of negotiations - attempted at least - between the United Stated and Russia over the fate of Ukraine and Europe, it is worth remembering that the Americans political leadership is considered today by the Russians as not capable of making agreements.
The Russians have a long but useful word for the incapability of sticking to agreement : “недоговороспособность”, i.e. agreement-incapable. This trait may become a liability for the United States, in possible upcoming negotiation with Russia regarding Ukraine and Europe’s security architecture. It is well known that the Russians’ approach to international relations is “trust but verify” (доверяй, но проверяй). But how is that possible when a duplicitous and false Uncle Sam simply cannot be trusted?
For starters, the US never kept its word not to expand NATO “one inch eastward” as US Secretary of State James Baker had promised, along with many others political leaders in the West. Mikhail Gorbachev thought, apparently, that he was dealing with “gentlemen”, according to the late historian Hélène Carrère d'Encausse. What suprising naiveté, especially with regards to Americans, from the clever political apparatchik from the little town of Stavropol, who managed to become Secretary General of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union at the age of only 53! How little he suspected the deceiving and ever-conniving Washington politicians.
Regarding Ukraine, the United States were not signatory to the Minsk II agreement in 2015 though Washington certainly encouraged France, Germany and Ukraine to refrain from implementing it, thereby fooling Russia again into believing that the West sincerely wanted a peaceful resolution of the simmering issue of Donbass. It is worth remembering that Minsk II had been voted unanimously 15-0 in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and was thus part of international law.
Similar examples abound, maybe the most important being the US withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty in 2002 (signed with the Soviet Union in 1972), which significantly increased the mistrust in Russia towards the US.
Further, the United States joined the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015, only to withdraw from it upon the arrival of Trump to the White House in 2017. Then Biden rejoined in 2021 and Trump again withdrew in 2025. The same thing happened with the Iran Nucleal Deal (JCPOA), which actually was in the US interest to adhere to since it gave a guarantee of Iran not developing a nuclear weapon. Trump withdrew from the Nuclear Deal in 2017, and even Biden had no interest in trying to put the JCPOA back on its feet when he came to office in 2021, even though it was the result of his Democratic predecessor Obama.
It is important to remember that the Paris Climate Agreement was “just” an executive agreement signed by the President; it did not involve Congress. The JCPOA is not even an executive agreement, but was just considered “politically binding”. So, these agreements never became part of US law even though in the case of the JCPOA it was voted through the UNSC so it became part of international law. Yet, as a founding member of the UN, the JCPOA should thus be considered legally binding for the United States...
The United Stated ratifies international agreements or treaties only rarely and selectively. According to the United States Constitution, the President "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur" (Article II, section 2). Thus, one would think and hope that the President’s “word” through executive agreements could also be “taken to the bank”, but that is evidently not the case, as the Russians have noted. There are many more such example in the past of disdain for initial US commitments, such as the Geneva Accords (1954) to settle the questions of Indochina and Korea, and the Kyoto Protocol (1997).
The most glaring and chocking disregard for its promises and legal commitments, leading to millions of victims and refugees around the world, have of course been the repeated US violation of the most important international treaty that has been ratified by the US, namely the United Nations Charter. As is well known, the US violated the UN Charter in instances such as the NATO attack on Serbia in 1999, the Iraq War in 2003, as well as all the unilateral sanctions and blockades (e.g. against Iran, Cuba, Venezuela) making life miserable for decades for ordinary citizens of countries that are considered “rogue” states by Washington for ideological or geostrategic reasons.
The United States imposed "three times as many sanctions as any other country or international body, targeting a third of all nations with some kind of financial penalty on people, properties or organizations”. If any country in the world is an unreliable and aggressive rogue state, it is the United States.
It is not surprising therefore that the Russians consider the United States “agreement-incapable”. What others think of the United States has never bothered the political leadership in Washington DC, since the United States was, until recently, perceived as the Hegemon, trying to lead a unipolar world in a most destructive way. But things have changed, and the US may soon come to regret its past behavior in the international arena. This is true not only with respect to the Ukraine conflict, but also more generally with the advent of a multipolar world for which respect for international law is still the pillar of international relations.
One important conclusion I take from all this is actually a positive one: trust in Washington is declining — globally. Perhaps this is overly optimistic, but I believe it slowly paves the way toward the end of a hegemony built on lies, broken promises, and manipulations to avoid honoring agreements. Not to mention “verbal agreements” — as in the case of Ukraine’s neutrality, which unfortunately was largely only on trust or mere promises, demonstrating that the word of the West is worth little, if anything.
This is why it’s good that Russia now insists on clear, concrete guarantees. Peace cannot be achieved unless Ukraine’s neutrality is ratified formally and on paper. I see no other realistic path to stability. Of course, this echoes what you wrote in your article about Russia being perhaps too trusting toward the West — perhaps this guarantee should have been formalized back in the 1990s, but that’s a “what if.” What is clear, however, is that it is the West’s responsibility that Ukraine has lost territory to the Russian Federation. Had Washington honored its promises, this situation would likely never have arisen.
"We Made a Lot of Enemy's Around The World - Maybe A Few Of Them Teamed Up" Keven
Bacon - Leave the World Behind (2023)