Their conclusion is not really deferent to either side's argument. Russia had every reason to believe in what was repeatedly said and implied, while the US had a justification in going against previous promises as the geopolitical scene shifted quite dramatically from when those promises were made.
Beyond this I'd emphasize in that geopolitical relations it's not like there's any law that forces countries need to abide their promises, whether spoken or written. If somehow there were a secret agreement in which the US overtly and inexplicably agreed to not expand eastward in conditions identical to what happened, so what? Call on the UN to pass a meaningless resolution which the US would just veto anyhow?
And so in international relations, the perceived trust of a nation is ultimately far more relevant than the formality of an agreement.
Their conclusion is not really deferent to either side's argument. Russia had every reason to believe in what was repeatedly said and implied, while the US had a justification in going against previous promises as the geopolitical scene shifted quite dramatically from when those promises were made.
Beyond this I'd emphasize in that geopolitical relations it's not like there's any law that forces countries need to abide their promises, whether spoken or written. If somehow there were a secret agreement in which the US overtly and inexplicably agreed to not expand eastward in conditions identical to what happened, so what? Call on the UN to pass a meaningless resolution which the US would just veto anyhow?
And so in international relations, the perceived trust of a nation is ultimately far more relevant than the formality of an agreement.