3 ms·

> This need to mislead about politics and events is so annoying Agreed. The increasingly post-truth nature of public narratives is disturbing. But I wonder wh

> This need to mislead about politics and events is so annoying Agreed. The increasingly post-truth nature of public narratives is disturbing. But I wonder what do you consider to be "good reasons" (even if arguably)?

mlyle 4y ago
> But I wonder what do you consider to be "good reasons" (even if arguably)? If your counterpart in a treaty isn't following it much of the time, you need to consider: * Whether the benefit you're getting from their partial / grudging compliance is more than the downsides of complying yourself. * The symbolic benefits and costs of the treaty continuing to exist despite being ignored. * The precedent that you set by tolerating violations of important treaties; you might be emboldening that counterparty, or other counterparties, to engage in further violations. Basically, there has to be a credible belief that it's at least possible/somewhat likely you'll have a big reaction to a violation of a treaty for the treaty to remain effective. It doesn't mean you need to have a big reaction to any given violation.
- foverzar 4y ago
  > If your counterpart in a treaty isn't following it much of the time Was this actually the case? Google tells me that "much of the time" seems like 3 specific instances. One of which isn't even technically related to Russia, but rather to Georgian (now Ossetian/Abhasian territories), implying that these are Russian territories (lol), while on another instance blaming Russia for providing an airport in Crimea, implying that these are not Russian territories (LOL! Truly logically consistent) The third instance of limiting flight over Kaliningrad oblast to 500km (total size about 15000 km^2, sqrt is about 150km) seems like the only one somewhat substantial. On the other hand, I see Russia accusing the US of denying flights over its territory on a few instances and also denying access by its newer planes back around 2014 Seems like the whole deal was somewhat dysfunctional already, but not like a total disaster, really. I've also managed to google Trump's rhetorics on the treaty with stuff like "force Russia to bring China to the table". Overall, it seems to me like a total insubstantial political bullshit, but I guess perspective may vary.

mlyle 4y ago

> But I wonder what do you consider to be "good reasons" (even if arguably)? If your counterpart in a treaty isn't following it much of the time, you need to consider: * Whether the benefit you're getting from their partial / grudging compliance is more than the downsides of complying yourself. * The symbolic benefits and costs of the treaty continuing to exist despite being ignored. * The precedent that you set by tolerating violations of important treaties; you might be emboldening that counterparty, or other counterparties, to engage in further violations. Basically, there has to be a credible belief that it's at least possible/somewhat likely you'll have a big reaction to a violation of a treaty for the treaty to remain effective. It doesn't mean you need to have a big reaction to any given violation.

foverzar 4y ago
> If your counterpart in a treaty isn't following it much of the time Was this actually the case? Google tells me that "much of the time" seems like 3 specific instances. One of which isn't even technically related to Russia, but rather to Georgian (now Ossetian/Abhasian territories), implying that these are Russian territories (lol), while on another instance blaming Russia for providing an airport in Crimea, implying that these are not Russian territories (LOL! Truly logically consistent) The third instance of limiting flight over Kaliningrad oblast to 500km (total size about 15000 km^2, sqrt is about 150km) seems like the only one somewhat substantial. On the other hand, I see Russia accusing the US of denying flights over its territory on a few instances and also denying access by its newer planes back around 2014 Seems like the whole deal was somewhat dysfunctional already, but not like a total disaster, really. I've also managed to google Trump's rhetorics on the treaty with stuff like "force Russia to bring China to the table". Overall, it seems to me like a total insubstantial political bullshit, but I guess perspective may vary.