#Poland professor of international law Sławomir Dębski[^1] on the fundamental misunderstanding of application of the concepts of law to #Russia
> Sergei Lavrov now suggests that Russia’s signature on yet another agreement should be treated as a credible guarantee of restraint. That request would carry more weight if Russia had not systematically violated virtually every foundational legal commitment that structured European security after 1945 and after 1991.
> Russia has violated the UN Charter (the prohibition on the use of force), the Paris Charter for a New Europe, the NATO–Russia Founding Act, all its bilateral treaties with Ukraine recognizing its borders, and the Budapest Memorandum, under which Ukraine surrendered its nuclear weapons in exchange for security assurances. After this record, asking the international community to believe that “this time will be different” amounts to asking for an act of faith detached from evidence.
> The problem is not the absence of treaties. The problem is Russia’s non-normative understanding of international law. For Moscow, international law is not a set of binding rules that apply equally to all. It is an instrument - something others are expected to obey, when it serves Russian interests. Russia, by contrast, considers itself exempt. Compliance occurs only under one condition: fear of reciprocity: the expectation that violations will be met with equal or greater consequences.
> History reinforces this conclusion. In 1932, the Soviet Union signed non-aggression pacts with both Poland and Finland. In 1939, it invaded both. Those treaties did not fail because of legal ambiguity; they failed because Moscow never regarded them as morally or politically binding. They were tactical conveniences, discarded the moment they ceased to serve Soviet interests.
> Nothing in Russia’s contemporary behavior suggests a departure from that tradition. Treaties, from Moscow’s perspective, are not safeguards of peace; they are pauses between acts of coercion, respected only when backed by credible deterrence.
> The lesson is therefore clear: peace in Europe will not be secured by new Russian signatures on old paper. It will be secured only when Russia understands that violating agreements carries consequences it cannot afford. Only deterrence - not promises -has ever constrained Moscow’s behavior.
In his post he also very much recommends a book by #Estonia professor Lauri Mälksoo
"Russian Approaches to International Law" (2015).
[^1]: https://x.com/SlawomirDebski/status/1999430989106298952?s=20
kravietz 🦇
npub1pa…jc9c8
2025-12-13 13:08:46 UTC
Author Public Key
npub1par9x23t2mmfwnfyqav06qvzjl7lntrypwc2l9sk9zg8w057yxtqzjc9c8Seen on
wss://relay.momostr.pinkPublished at
2025-12-13 13:08:46 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "fa1f51abde61c769c06b068e24d8675b170e2ada7033a4818efdaa03122b09a0",
"pubkey": "0f46532a2b56f6974d240758fd018297fdf9ac640bb0af96162890773e9e2196",
"created_at": 1765631326,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"t",
"russia"
],
[
"t",
"poland"
],
[
"t",
"estonia"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://agora.echelon.pl/objects/df46ddbd-c3a3-42b0-82c3-4353ca44f6ac",
"activitypub"
],
[
"L",
"pink.momostr"
],
[
"l",
"pink.momostr.activitypub:https://agora.echelon.pl/objects/df46ddbd-c3a3-42b0-82c3-4353ca44f6ac",
"pink.momostr"
],
[
"-"
]
],
"content": "#Poland professor of international law Sławomir Dębski[^1] on the fundamental misunderstanding of application of the concepts of law to #Russia\r\n\r\n\u003e Sergei Lavrov now suggests that Russia’s signature on yet another agreement should be treated as a credible guarantee of restraint. That request would carry more weight if Russia had not systematically violated virtually every foundational legal commitment that structured European security after 1945 and after 1991.\r\n\r\n\u003e Russia has violated the UN Charter (the prohibition on the use of force), the Paris Charter for a New Europe, the NATO–Russia Founding Act, all its bilateral treaties with Ukraine recognizing its borders, and the Budapest Memorandum, under which Ukraine surrendered its nuclear weapons in exchange for security assurances. After this record, asking the international community to believe that “this time will be different” amounts to asking for an act of faith detached from evidence.\r\n\r\n\u003e The problem is not the absence of treaties. The problem is Russia’s non-normative understanding of international law. For Moscow, international law is not a set of binding rules that apply equally to all. It is an instrument - something others are expected to obey, when it serves Russian interests. Russia, by contrast, considers itself exempt. Compliance occurs only under one condition: fear of reciprocity: the expectation that violations will be met with equal or greater consequences.\r\n\r\n\u003e History reinforces this conclusion. In 1932, the Soviet Union signed non-aggression pacts with both Poland and Finland. In 1939, it invaded both. Those treaties did not fail because of legal ambiguity; they failed because Moscow never regarded them as morally or politically binding. They were tactical conveniences, discarded the moment they ceased to serve Soviet interests. \r\n\r\n\u003e Nothing in Russia’s contemporary behavior suggests a departure from that tradition. Treaties, from Moscow’s perspective, are not safeguards of peace; they are pauses between acts of coercion, respected only when backed by credible deterrence.\r\n\r\n\u003e The lesson is therefore clear: peace in Europe will not be secured by new Russian signatures on old paper. It will be secured only when Russia understands that violating agreements carries consequences it cannot afford. Only deterrence - not promises -has ever constrained Moscow’s behavior.\r\n\r\nIn his post he also very much recommends a book by #Estonia professor Lauri Mälksoo\r\n \"Russian Approaches to International Law\" (2015).\r\n\r\n[^1]: https://x.com/SlawomirDebski/status/1999430989106298952?s=20",
"sig": "69a800b6866081ac503ada9bf3f3970095dd3a8028dc79e506319b4d04978fb007a26f2b8ed87cfc7edcee7454ee802a2c5877460f6bc03f68041c8aba9b8144"
}