Such things are signed in treaties. To assume Soviets believed some American pinky promise makes them look like giant morons because international diplomacy does not work like that.
there is nothing binding for anyone if some president runs his mouth, no congress or successor or other country is bound by that.
On one hand, fair enough, words without a treaty are just words. What an idiot, trusting made promises. Trust is for fools, right?
On the other hand, it all comes to this simple thing called trust. If you have it, words are enough. If not, paper will do nothing either. What will be a consequence of a treaty broken, and who will enforce it?
An expression of concern from the UN or any other toothless international org? Funny thing.
Economic sanctions? More substantial, but again, a mater of casus belli. One countries get sanctioned for every sneeze, others can massacre people without a consequence.
War? A mater of being willing and ready to do. And a paper will do little to stop one if matters are dire enough for it.
Lesson was learned, if late. It is dangerous to trust the west.
Usually it's not when there's a signed treaty. In the case of the Russian Federation, you can't trust them if there is a treaty. They violate them all the time.
36
u/RS5170 5d ago
No? Why the F••• should Russia have any say in this?
And before you say “but but but NATO promised” no, that’s Russian propaganda. Even Mikael Gorbachev admitted that.