Likely the deal has already been struck.
The United States pressured Ukraine to show willingness to negotiate a few weeks ago.
Then Russia gives up Kherson as a form of 'guarantee' that no offensives for Odessa or Transnistria will take place.
Russia is probably well-prepared to defend against any Ukrainian offensives (apparently several defensive lines have been created), thus this situation with Kherson in Ukrainian hands is a stable state of affairs for both sides.
My guess is some form of peace talks are going to take place soon.
I can't answer that question because you've not answered my request for clarity on it. 'Tolerate' how? — Isaac
the situation with the children has come up among peace criteria and whatnot — jorndoe
Anyway, am I then to understand that the situation with the children, by your take, is irrelevant, does not figure in any limitation where — jorndoe
The limits are between what to tolerate and not to tolerate, what they may get away with and not get away with — jorndoe
? — jorndoe
That would be a response to my comment. — jorndoe
If peace negotiations have to agree to the legitimacy of the current political map in order to take place, then how are border changes ever legitimised? — Isaac
Ok so your "supplicantS", plural, would be Russia and Ukraine. Who would your "enforcing power" be? — Olivier5
would tolerate — jorndoe
let them get away with it? — jorndoe
I'm guessing most would be behind the Ukrainians here. And that would set out a limit, thereby answering my comment. Different from one you'd put forth? — jorndoe
Countries are presently a political reality. As mentioned, you may deny that reality, that just isn't very helpful. — jorndoe
As to enforcing powers, the UN pass for the closest thing we have to a global legal system. — Isaac
No one is saying that currently there's no such thing as the Ukrainian government and therefore nobody to negotiate with. They're saying that the current powers of that government ought to change. — Isaac
Step by step, Ukraine was dragged into a dangerous geopolitical game aimed at turning Ukraine into a barrier between Europe and Russia, a springboard against Russia. Inevitably, there came a time when the concept of ”Ukraine is not Russia“ was no longer an option. There was a need for the ”anti-Russia“ concept which we will never accept.
The owners of this project took as a basis the old groundwork of the Polish-Austrian ideologists to create an ”anti-Moscow Russia“. And there is no need to deceive anyone that this is being done in the interests of the people of Ukraine. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth never needed Ukrainian culture, much less Cossack autonomy. In Austria-Hungary, historical Russian lands were mercilessly exploited and remained the poorest. The Nazis, abetted by collaborators from the OUN-UPA, did not need Ukraine, but a living space and slaves for Aryan overlords. — On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians, President Putin
The UN cannot enforce anything. Therefore, there's no enforcing piwer here. Therefore, your conceptual framework doesn't work. There's no supplicant here either. In an international treaty, there are parties, the signatories, and they strike a deal, an agreement. And since you cannot agree anything with someone who doesn't exist, the first step in drafting such an agreement is usually some form of mutual recognition, which often features in article 1 of the agreement, for this reason of logical anteriority. — Olivier5
How much should Putin + team be allowed to get away with scot-free? — jorndoe
The observation was to underscore a minimum concession from Russia that could possibly interest the Ukrainians from stopping their fight. — Paine
From this perspective, the organization calling itself the government of Ukraine is not a nation protecting its interests but an instrument of foreign powers. The only parties to negotiate with are the foreign powers. Your idea that one could make a deal with a state but not recognize the people speaking for it is not possible in practice. I am not sure it is even an idea.
In any case, since the invasion of Ukraine was based upon this rationale put forward by Putin, how could any deal be made without specifically withdrawing the claim? Otherwise, the only deal possible would be between the "West" and Russia to partition the lands in dispute. — Paine
the usual switch — Isaac
I think it's Ukraine that want Russia to stop their flight. Ukraine are no threat to Russia right now, they're not invading Russia. — Isaac
What physically stops that deal from being struck? — Isaac
I'm afraid I just don't understand what you're saying here at all. — Isaac
I'm also not claiming that countries don't exist. I'm claiming they don't have a right to exist. — Isaac
It's transparent and tiresome. — Isaac
Anyway, am I then to understand that the situation with the children, by your take, is irrelevant, does not figure in any limitation where — jorndoe
The limits are between what to tolerate and not to tolerate, what they may get away with and not get away with — jorndoe
? — jorndoe
the situation with the children has come up among peace criteria and whatnot — jorndoe
That would be a response to my comment. — jorndoe
Even ethical discussions have to be logical. Ethically, Russia should withdraw its troops and try and negotiate a peace agreement. with Ukraine. Logically, it cannot do so without first recognizing the entity called Ukraine. — Olivier5
the issue of illegally displaced people and adopted children would have to be addressed in any such peace agreement — Olivier5
It was not a peace agreement. — Olivier5
Russia has annexed the oblasts of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, and Crimea. The Kremlin today: "This is Russian territory." — Paine
Agreeing to a cease fire is far from negotiating an end to hostilities. It is like agreeing to exchange sets of prisoners or to not bomb grain ships. Brokers like Turkey and Saudi Arabia permit minimum contact between the enemies in such cases. That is hardly the stuff of mutual security guarantees. — Paine
"We don't recognise your right to rule over Donbas, but we will never attack this location ever again if you stop shelling us" — Isaac
Not quite. One article might contain a promise from NATO. Who the supplicant is depends on the commitment the article is about.
As to enforcing powers, the UN pass for the closest thing we have to a global legal system. An agreement endorsed by the UN has a greater staying power than a bilateral one. — Isaac
Where do you get this idea? By what judgement you made this idea that Russia gave a "guarantee"?As I said:
Likely the deal has already been struck.
The United States pressured Ukraine to show willingness to negotiate a few weeks ago.
Then Russia gives up Kherson as a form of 'guarantee' that no offensives for Odessa or Transnistria will take place. — Tzeentch
The Soviet Union couldn't continue the arms race and actually did collapse partly because of it (even if Americans tend to overemphasize this). Soviet Union was spending twice the percentage of GDP than the US was and it was failing to keep up in the technological race. You are correct in that the two Superpowers never trusted each other, but agreements could be found simply when there wasn't any other sustainable option.The argument that "Putin can't be trusted" as a basis to reject an otherwise good peace deal is simply an invalid argument. The trust in an international counter-party has little to do with reasons to enter an agreement or not. US and the Soviets never trusted each other, but entered into all sorts of agreements.
Indeed, the basic assumption of international relations is that countries don't just go ahead and trust each other, but the situation is more complicated than that. — boethius
By what judgement you made this idea that Russia gave a "guarantee"? — ssu
The Ukrainians had made it impossible for Russia to supply over the Dniepr a huge force as it's dependence on rail lines made this totally obvious. — ssu
Prior to the midterm elections. Now the situation doesn't look so bad for the Democrats though. — neomac
What is odd?By my own judgement. The way the Russians left Kherson is odd, so I sought a reasonable explanation. — Tzeentch
Everything written or documented is against this.Nothing stopped the Russians from reducing the force occupying Kherson, allowing it to be supplied while also imposing a cost on Ukraine for taking it. They chose not to, and that is not typical for two nations at war. — Tzeentch
(Daily Telegraph, 22nd August) Ukrainian forces have used Himars rocket systems to halt Russian repairs to a key supply bridge in occupied Kherson as they continue to press on the southern frontline.
Online footage shows a fiery explosion on Antonovsky bridge after at least 15 people were injured as a result of the broad daylight shelling on Monday, Russian news agency TASS said.
"At around 1pm on August 22, in order to disrupt the work to restore the roadway, Ukrainian troops attacked from the American Himars rocket systems at the site of repair work on the Antonovsky Bridge," a local official was quoted as saying.
The bridge has come under fire at least eight times since July 19.
It is the only road crossing that connects the city of Kherson with the wider region on the eastern side of the Dnieper river.
likely deals have been made. — Tzeentch
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.