[yodon]

In Diplomacy, like in legal contracts, the written agreement is the binding agreement. Experienced negotiators like Gorbachev and Baker know this.

Baker's un-written assurances may have bound him (Baker) to personally help ensure his assurances held, if only to preserve his credibility in other negotiations, but all parties involved understood they were not being written into the agreement and therefore were not a formal agreement. These words had meaning, even when not written into the agreement, because Baker was telling Gorbachev the truth, which was that the US understood that moving the borders of NATO east would be a bad idea. Gorbachev heard that the US understood this. It wasn't a binding legal agreement, it was a statement about the political landscape at that time.

Baker is long gone from the diplomatic landscape and so is that assurance. This isn't actually a surprise.

[scotty79]

Not really since countries are freely violating written agreements that became inconvenient for them or accuse of breaking unwritten ones.

Diolomatic agreements serve one purpose, to enable future diplomacy and their importance should be evaluated through that lens.

[AnimalMuppet]

But the written agreements are the "diplomatic agreements". A lot of things get said, a lot of positions get stated. It's the written agreements that are the actual binding promises.

Of course, as you say, those aren't really binding either. The written promises sometimes are worth the paper they're written on. Verbal promises are worth less than that.

[scotty79]

Sure, but diplomacy it's much wider than dipomatic agreements and diplomatic agreements are just one tool of it that actually seems easier to be discarded than signed with informal communication shaping actual relations and tone way more.

Written agreements are usually cherry on top of the cake made entirely out of verbal promises and real world balance of force.