Okay Sertorio: since my participation on this website is not a gainful occupation where I am paid by the hour but a pastime where I volunteer my free time (such as I have available - which it not a lot); I only speed read through sections of your opening quote in order to get the "drift". Likewise I did not pay particular attention to other links provided since.
However in so far as US foreign policy is at issue in this discussion I would like to submit the following:
Of course, later, in 1994, Bill Clinton decided to expand NATO eastward despite the various assurances that the previous administration had offered Gorbachev
—and despite legendary diplomat George F. Kennan’s repeated warnings.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-b ... ldnt-23629
It seems that in the USA you do not get bi-partisan agreement on foreign policy unless the USA has cause to feel threatened by a foreign power - as during the Cold War. With the collapse of the USSR empire that threat was removed and US foreign policy ever since has been adrift.
With historical hindsight it would seem that George Bush the elder gave verbal reassurances to the leadership of the collapsing USSR that NATO would not expand its borders any further east than East Germany (which was due to be incorporated into the Federal Republic and therefore would become part of NATO because of that). I believe that George Bush meant it at the time as he was a man of honour.
The mistake made by the Soviet leadership (Mikhail Gorbachev) was that they did not get the Bush Administration to sign a solemn treaty guaranteeing this.
It seems that Bush's successor in office Bill Clinton, a man of lesser character than Bush (not noted for being a man of honour), did not feel morally bound to abide by his successor-in-office's assurances to Moscow. Of course the subsequent expansion of NATO east right up to Russia's borders was seen in Moscow as a betrayal of trust by the USA. It still is I believe and one can hardly blame the Russians from seeing it that way.
With hindsight I have long believed that it would have been better for posterity had President George Bush the elder, despite the man's reputation for being over-cautious (a wimp?), won the 1992 election instead of Bill Clinton for the sake of policy continuity.
There you have it! Ever since US foreign policy came adrift post-Cold War it has become hostage to the whims of different US administrations and correspondingly shambolic, inconsistent, as a consequence.