https://pixabay.com/photos/letter-document-handwriting-paper-1840354/
Contracts, agreements and commitments have been made for hundreds of years. In the old days, what counted most was undoubtedly the word.
If two parties, or two people, spoke to each other and shook hands at the end, the contract was signed. And since not all agreements were drawn up in court or by notaries, that was all it took to realize that both parties would abide by it.
Nowadays, there are few situations in which we can rely solely on the word of the other party.
And what has led to this “chronic” distrust of the other person's word?
A world that seeks the best for itself, without looking the other way, is one of the explanations we can give for why this phenomenon has grown among us over the last few decades.
In the last few hours, we've seen a contract being concluded without one of the parties being present at its inception. What does this indicate to the rest of the world? That we are only giving voice and listening to the concerns of those who have the most power. Does such a contract have any legitimacy? Or is it just the submission of the less powerful, facing the aggressor?
How can someone decide the future of a border, not being in the sphere of physical proximity, and only inviting one of the parties involved?
I don't know who can be trusted today, and I'm afraid of the path we're deciding to take... If for some reason Russia manages to take all the land it has conquered through death and continued aggression, what is the point of having international law?
With a border of more than 1500 km between the two nations, how can we guarantee that Russia won't attack its neighbor again with the same excuse?
If we act according to the principle of unequal treatment, we are taking the world into a New Order. And when we wake up the next day, we can't help but look at the sky, which will surely be darker.
Free image from Pixabay.com