Beamup Wrote:This is, in fact, exactly my point. "If you give me three cities we have an NAP" is a perfectly legitimate agreement. In my hypothetical, I'm "modifying" the agreement from "we have an NAP" to "if you give me three cities we have an NAP". As you correctly note, that is not modifying the agreement, it's breaking it.
No it is not your point what you apperntly don't get is this :
If you have already a NAP your threatening is the breaking of the NAP not the altering. The act of agression you do with your demand is the breaking of the NAP.
Beamup Wrote:"Modifying" an agreement "we have an NAP" to "we have an NAP as long as you don't declare on X" is, in exactly the same way, BREAKING the agreement, because there is no such thing as a unilateral modification of an agreement.
They did not change the agreement. It is still a 'we have a NAP'. Nothing changed there. With the MDP they only clarified what they view as an agressive act. The NAP's signed here are not very specific about what is considered an agressive move or not so there is enough room for clarifications.