The U.S. instead provided a security "assurance" which was understood to mean a level of support short of U.S. troops on the ground. And in fact that is what the U.S. has been providing: intelligence and material, but no U.S. forces.
In other words, the level of support has been commensurate with the agreement signed. Until today, apparently.
Ultimately it comes down to trust. And the current US administration is doing its best to destroy trust built up over the last 80 years.
That being said, the US still has not broken any agreement, binding or non-binding. So your point is somewhat beside the point.
> Clinton and Yeltsin did promise Ukraine “full guarantees of security, as a sign of friendship and good neighborliness.” The two leaders also reaffirmed “the obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state,” including Ukraine.
Still - guess you have to check the small print.
The words you quoted came out of Yeltsin's mouth, not Clintons:
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/30921-document-9-memorand...
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/30921-document-9-memorand...
Also, that was not any form of an agreement, it was just words in a meeting. Nobody signed, it was not ratified with US congress as a treaty.
If you take that as binding then all the verbal commitments made to Russia that NATO won't expand eastwards should also have been binding, and they were broken first. I know you will get angry that I mention it, but it's a fact.
Security guarantees would at minimum require a treaty ratified by congress in US, something which I don't think is on the table any more at all.
This happens probably 100x more than rolling up with warships.
When it mattered? Yes. When it was against its own interest? Almost never, just like every other great power.
Also in matters of security they did a good job between 1945 and 2014 of keeping peace in Europe and stopping Russia running amok which was not that easy in Stalin's day.
1) They could reduce and rate limit lend lease to Soviet similar like they rate limited to Ukraine so buy themself more time until nuke is ready and then drop one on Dresden or Berlin (Berlin capitulated in May and they had first nuke in July so just few months later). After that probably didn't had nuke Japan. Also Poland and other eastern countries maybe wouldn't be a puppet state because Stalin lied to them and they would be under influence of US and Soviet Union would be weaker.
2) If they didn't have russian spy in their manhattan project then maybe russia wouldn't have nukes or had much much later.
3) If their didn't listen to british and US didn't overturn Mossadegh (instead of negotiating oil deal) then they wouldn't have maybe such a big mess in Iran and middle east now.
4) If the put some leash on Wall Street and their corporations then maybe they wouldn't let China to outcompete them so easily and now wouldn't have to worry about their own economical dominance.
5) If they would upfront told russian they will return nuke to Ukraine in case invasion because of broken contract commitment then they wouldn't have to worry about current mess in Europe.
6) Not much familiar with the whole history of Afganistan but still wondering what and how badly they US screwed that Afghans that were fighting with Soviet Union with aid of US turned agains them.
The U.S. president doesn’t seem to care about international commitments, though. How does that work out in the long run? Would you do business with someone who tells you up front that they might break any promise they make?