this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
490 points (96.8% liked)

World News

38729 readers
2411 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

“Whether you like it, or not, history is on our side. We will bury you,” he said quoting former USSR leader Nikita Khrushchev.

Russian politician Dmitry Medvedev said on Tuesday Russia could have a right to go to war with NATO.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] severien 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's written right in your article:

None of NATO’s pledges to the leaders of the Soviet Union have been written down in any agreement, signed by the two parties and codified. Indeed, no one claims to have such a document.

[–] luckyhunter -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] severien 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It's all that matters. Some random utterances, speaking off the record etc. don't count, aren't and cannot be binding.

How could we bind ourselves to something if we don't even know what exactly was promised?

Furthermore, were those people uttering those hypothetical sentences even authorized to make such promises? We'll never know, they were never written down, never vetted, nothing. It's all meaningless.

[–] luckyhunter -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In U.S. domestic politics, for example, an informal offer can constitute a binding agreement provided one party gives up something of value in consideration of payment in goods or services. A similar principle applies to inter- national politics: not only are formal agreements often the codiacation of arrangements that states would make regardless of a formal offer, but if private and unwritten discussions are meaningless, then diplomacy itself would be an unnecessary and fruitless exercise.

Nope. The article then goes on to describe his research into exactly how NATO discussed how there was a long history of informal agreements during the cold war. The Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved informally for example.

[–] severien 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well, US domestic politics isn't international, is it?

an informal offer can constitute a binding agreement provided one party gives up something of value in consideration of payment in goods or services.

What did the other side receive? We'll never know, since it wasn't recorded, most people involved can't remember (Gorbachev couldn't recall any such promises) and/or are already dead.

The Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved informally for example.

It can be used to resolve an immediate problem. But it's absurd to think that an unrecorded agreement whose terms nobody knows will be binding for eternity.

[–] luckyhunter -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wars have been started for far less. Not like there's a world court that's going to rule if a claim is valid or not.

[–] severien 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

This is not why the war was started, this is just the excuse they're trying to justify it with. Don't be complicit.

[–] luckyhunter 0 points 1 year ago

Yeah I know. And in the end the reason doesn't matter, like at all.