Russia has 'right to war' with 'each and every' NATO country - Medvedev

World News@lemmy.world – 481 points – 11 months ago

Russia has 'right to war' with NATO - Medvedev

“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

View all comments Show the parent comment

There was no such promise.

Stop spreading Kremlin propaganda.

The topic of 'NATO expansion' was never discussed; it was not raised in those years. I am saying this with a full sense of responsibility. Not a single Eastern European country brought up the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact had ceased to exist in 1991. -- Gorbachev

So yeah this is another case of russia bending history to fuel their victim complex.

Yes they did. Stop believing Social media trash propaganda you support.

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.

Read past the first line.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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