He cannot imagine (or admit) that the Russians are forced to leave Kherson so he must imagine that there is some mysterious secret peace deal behind it all. — Olivier5
The Russian retreat from Kherson. — Olivier5
He cannot imagine (or admit) that the Russians are forced to leave Kherson — Olivier5
evidence that Russia was forced to retreat from Kherson, as opposed to Tzeentch's theory that they left in preparation for a peace deal? — Isaac
there's no evidence of any peace deal — Olivier5
Russian general admitted on TV that they couldn't supply the troops on the right bank of the Dniepr and thus had to withdraw. — Olivier5
They didn't. They were forced to give it up. — frank
That is not what Tzeentch is saying though. — Olivier5
Giving up ground for free with loud announcement is not a typical military action, regardless of what position these troops found themselves in, which is why it is likely the town was abandoned under loud announcement for other reasons - a deal potentially, which is given some credit due to Zelensky talking about "the end of the war" shortly after the retreat from Kherson, — Tzeentch
I hope you'll agree that a complete collapse of the Russian lines is not in the cards any time soon, so why would he be saying this, if there wasn't some deal made? — Tzeentch
It's just far fetched that the Russians would divest themselves of their assets prior to official negotiations. — frank
I don't know. — frank
what do you think I'm saying? :lol: — Tzeentch
The precondition of any agreement is that the parties involved have some reason to pursue an agreement. Having nuclear weapons is not a "pre-condition" for entering that "kind of an agreement".
Lot's of non-nuclear powers have entered the same non-proliferation agreements ... without having nuclear weapons.
What you are saying is both meaningless and false.
The only "precondition" to negotiating any agreement is being able to communicate. Just declaring preconditions is just a way of saying you won't negotiate, or then because you think the other party will give you concessions for free for some reason. — “boethius
This is what Russia wants: Negotiate with the West, the counter-party with the actual leverage (the weapons, the money, the economic sanctions). — boethius
Ukraine will not and cannot get any sort of guarantee from the US, or anyone else, in the "sense of certainty". — boethius
Again, if Ukraine signs, their guarantors sign, and then the "guarantors" don't do what they guaranteed, or did it in a bad faith way that is not fit for purpose. Is this a guarantee?
There are two meanings to guarantee commonly used: certainty (I guarantee you the sun will rise tomorrow) and a promise that is in no way certain (satisfaction guaranteed!). Now, the talk of US nuking Russia or doing something else, if they don't abide by the agreement or reinvade or whatever, if meant as a guarantee in the second sense (a promise that maybe kept, maybe not, the word "guarantee" just being an expression of confidence by a party that could be trying to deceive you), I have no issue. However, if people want to be able to actually visualise how Ukraine could be certain the agreement would be followed, and what the guarantee is in this sense, then we definitely seem to agree that there is no such guarantee.
Now, if such wording is useful diplomatically and adds some prestige reasons as additional motivation for parties to ensure the agreement happens, sure, have at it, add the word guarantee and "guarantor" after every sentence. — boethius
is exactly what I'm describing to explain why “guarantee” in such agreements would be ornamental and not representing something actually certain.
I point our your explanation is the same as mine (Ukraine will never get any sort of guarantee from anyone, other than ornamental) ... and then you complain that I'm not using your definition of international law as entirely voluntary? — boethius
Dude, for the third time, you are mistaken about what I claim. I didn’t write anywhere that nuclear weapons is a “precondition of any agreement”. — neomac
You misunderstood my claim. I was referring precisely to the following condition: “each side saw it was in their best interest to avoid a large scale nuclear war”. The best interest of both US and Soviet Union was calculated by taking into account the deterrence means they both had (but Ukraine doesn’t have!), and this was pre-condition for the kind of agreements they could rationally pursue. — neomac
You've got Zelensky negotiating from a position of power. — frank
You literally state "this was pre-condition for the kind of agreements they could rationally pursue".
What was the "pre-condition"? "taking into account the deterrence means they both had". — boethius
Which is obviously contradicted by other non-nuclear states doing the same thing, so obviously nuclear weapons isn't a pre-condition for "the kind of agreements they could rationally pursue", as other actors pursued the same agreements without having nuclear weapons. — boethius
In exchange for giving up its nuclear weapons, Ukraine received financial compensation, as well as the security assurances of the Budapest Memorandum. — wiki
Therefore Ukraine is rationally looking for alternatives (e.g. security guarantees, NATO membership and the like — neomac
You've got Zelensky negotiating from a position of power. — frank
So you think the Soviet Union would have gone fine on with unlimited weapons armament during the Cold War. One fifth going to defense spending wouldn't be enough? No. And on the other hand the West, which just was putting 5% into defense spending, it wouldn't have been detrimental to brush off any kind of talk of arms reductions and spending on other issues? Usually leadership of a country is rational, at least about it's popularity and survival.No. No one is forced to make agreements.
Even if a party can't possibly win, even then sometimes a party will not surrender and the other party does what they want by force without any agreement at any point about it. — boethius
Not only you had a leadership that wanted Gotterdämmerung for Germany and Germans, but also because the Nazi government had no option. Remember Yalta. There was (luckily) the ability for separate peace for Finland, but that option wasn't open for Germany. Something that is a very good choice: if the allies would have stopped at the borders of Germany, it's likely that the Nazi regime would have survived and Germans wouldn't be such pacifists as they are now.In no way true. There is always the option to keep fighting, even in a hopeless military situation (see: Nazi's sending children to fight) and just having all your positions overrun and your high command captured and / or run away. — boethius
I think that we are just arguing about just when a country needs to do a decision and when not to. I would just emphasize that a country that has started a war has gone to the extreme and doesn't back out of it's decisions for minor inconveniences.Certainly parties enter agreements because they think it's a good idea, but no one's ever forced to. — boethius
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.