Seems pretty collectivist to me… — Olivier5

But seems like not to some. :wink:

... Also, I don't have spy satellites, — boethius

I don't think your country has any satellites, do they?

Over 8 months ago I posted several reports by Western media (made before the war) investigating the Nazi's in Ukraine. — boethius

I remember someone eagerly quoting articles from 2014, when the right-sector had fought on the streets of Kyiv yet had not lost in the elections (which seems to be a minor detail). And of course that fringe party isn't in government. And then of course the favorite unit of Ukraine, which seemed to represent the Ukrainian armed forces well over half a million strong.

And needles to say, no mention of the true right-wing extremism in Russia. Who cares about that!

Of course, what you lack to understand is that Putin justified the war with the denazification of Ukraine argument, which accused of the present administration to be neonazis. This administration has no ties to neonazis. Trump has more to do with neonazis and nobody accused that populist administration to be neonazis (or perhaps some did, actually).

There's the old saying in Finland: the dog that barks is the one that the sticks hits.

It's a good saying. :smile:

Seems pretty collectivist to me…
— Olivier5

But seems like not to some. :wink: — ssu

I am struck by how quickly our good friend @boethius here is prompt to lose the plot, or change the goal post. First he says Ukraine is part of no collective, then that the UN -- which includes Ukraine -- does not define itself as a collective, and when proved wrong on it, he then segues into the UN not currently operating as a collective... Well, it does and it does not, depending.

First, in our exchange, you wasted all occasions to quote where Zelensky used the word "precondition" which would be relevant to your argument. — neomac


Why would this be relevant to my argument? The word precondition was already being discussed, the point of discussion was if Zelensky's precondition to negotiate were reasonable or not. — boethius

If you want to discuss about "preconditions" attributed to Zelensky ("discussing Zelensky and his preconditions for dozens of pages”) or “Zelensky's precondition to negotiate” based on actual and pertinent evidence, you must (rational requirement) provide such evidences, starting with Zelensky's declared "precondition" statements, if there are any. Isn't that obviously obvious to you? Or should I say “tautological”?

If you want a citation of Zelensky literally using the word precondition, here you go:

"We agreed that the Ukrainian delegation would meet with the Russian delegation without preconditions on the Ukrainian-Belarusian border, near the Pripyat River," he said in a statement. — Reuters

Zelensky demands Russian troops leave Ukraine as precondition to diplomacy — The Times of Isreal
— boethius

So no evidence of Zelensky's declared preconditions in relation to "security guarantees" or "NATO membership", just evidence about preconditions for diplomatic meeting with Russia. That’s why it’s irrelevant to quote him, and you need to conjecture things in the most caricatural way to make a point. Unfortunately it didn’t go well for you.

What is relevant here is that the word precondition was already being discussed, that was the whole focus of my point you were clearly trying to rebut. — boethius

So you are using the word “precondition" the way it suits your argument not necessarily in relation with Zelensky's actual "precondition" declarations and in spite of talking in terms of "Zelensky's preconditions". Then I too used the word "precondition" the way it suits my argument not necessarily in relation with the actual "precondition" statements in your previous discussion on “Zelensky's precondition to negotiate”. Period.
Your historical example of NPT between US and Soviet Union didn’t clarify to me what we could infer from it wrt the Ukrainian case. Hence my objection.
For example, you didn’t consider their hegemonic role to induce compliance also in non-nuclear countries within their sphere of influence, nor the obvious motivation for non nuclear-powers to join such treaties in exchange for a nuclear-power states commitment to curb their military nuclear capacity. As far as the Ukrainian case is concerned, any long-term agreement between Russia and Ukraine must take into account that, given the historical circumstances, Ukrainian security concerns require some form of Western military support (e.g. NATO membership, security guarantees or equivalent) because Ukraine doesn’t have nuclear bombs to protect itself against Russia.
Now let’s loop for the thousand time over your intellectual failures…

You start off with bait-and-switch the meaning of precondition — boethius

Not at all, for the reasons I just explained. Maybe you were misled by the way I formulated my objection due to its syntax and the discussion you previously had with other interlocutors. That was unfortunate, but a misunderstanding nonetheless.

All you're saying is "agents" reason about things. — boethius

That’s again a misunderstanding of my claim. Not what I actually claimed, indeed you can not quote me. You desperately need to rephrase in a caricatural way my point to reach the conclusion that suits you. And that’s intellectually miserable. I’m responsible for what I write, not for what you understand.

But that's simply obviously — boethius

Then you must (logical requirement) converge to my conclusions!

not the point you were making. In using the word "pre-condition" and emphasising that Ukraine is in a different nuclear status, — boethius

That’s again your silly misunderstanding, and your arguments to support it are just a preposterous way to brainwash yourself into believing you are right. But I have no pity for your intellectual misery, as I said.

My point is that any promise to Ukraine by the West is meaningless in itself. The promise would be fulfilled if, later, it suits these powers to fulfil the promise. If, later, it doesn't suit these powers to fulfil the promise then it won't be fulfilled. There's alignment for now (for some arms, but "tut, tut, tut get your dirty hands of the shiny shit"), I'm just pointing out that if that alignment ever went away (such as happened with the Kurds) then no piece of paper is going to matter.

An obvious reality you seem finally to agree with. — boethius

But I don't agree with you, you are a liar if you claim otherwise. In particular, I don't agree with those claims in bold. There are material and reputational costs to take into account while implementing such promises, and implied security concerns that such promises can trigger. It's the promise of having Ukraine joining NATO that has been claimed to be an existential threat for Russia and to provoke its reaction.
From the fact that a paper doesn't compel the West to act in a given way, you infer that it's meaningless. But it's an unjustified claim: even words have no meaning outside their actual usage, but it would be a sophism to infer that, for that reason, words are meaningless! The same goes with "NATO membership" or "security guarantees", it’s the geopolitical and historical conditions that surround such agreements that give meaning and motivate the perpetuation of related informal and formal practices (treaties, alliances, pacts, etc.). And all rational geopolitical actors are aware of this. That's how they deal with geopolitical threats or opportunities.
That's why your argument in support of your claim that such practices are "ornamental" is a straw man argument.

WHO ON EARTH IS TAKING SECURITY GUARANTEES IN THE CERTAINTY SENSE? CAN YOU QUOTE HIM? — neomac


“There is only one goal (from Russia): to destroy our independence. There’s no other goal in place. That’s why we need security guarantees. … And we believe we have already demonstrated our forces’ capability to the world.” — Zelensky, quoted by CNN — boethius

And where on earth did you get the idea that "need security guarantees" means or suggests that the West/NATO/US support is certain or certain because it's signed on a paper ?! Are you crazy, dude?

Now, if you're saying Zelensky knows that security guarantees are only ornamental fluff to promises that will only be kept if it suits the promising party to keep the promise (aka. a nominal but meaningless promise), then I'd be happy to hear that Zelensky isn't delusional on this point of international relations. — boethius

I NEVER MADE SUCH A CLAIM, YOU LIAR, quote where I did! I just claimed that "security guarantees" (or equivalent) are neither "ornamental" nor "meaningless" and that it’s rational for Zelensky to pursue them based on the current geopolitical and historical circumstances.
That is supported by the quotations I previously reported.

Russia doesn't only cite nuclear weapons as a threat from NATO, but forward deployed missile bases.

Tangible weapons systems in the real world owned and operated by NATO that require NATO membership to be deployed in your country.

Now, there was a de facto understanding after the ascension of the Baltic's into NATO that certain systems wouldn't be forward deployed in order to reduce tensions and the possibility of accidents.

NATO then forward deployed exactly those missile systems saying "something, something, Iran" even though that made no sense. Whether this was breaking a promise or not, clearly NATO's policy is to forward deploy threatening weapons systems.

The deployment of actual weapons systems is what matters.

If the Baltics were nominally in NATO but hosted no NATO infrastructure, then, yes, this isn't really a threat as no NATO attacks could be launched given this lack of NATO infrastructure to do so. It's a reasonable compromise to maintain a reasonable defensive posture: we won't forward deploy to the Baltics as we have no intention to attack you, but we will come to their aid if they are attacked.

Of course, once you do forward deploy military systems you are by definition threatening the people in range of those systems and the logic of a defensive posture goes away.

The apologetics logic about this is that Russia shouldn't view these forward deployed systems as a threat, even if there's no other reason for it, because in NATO's heart of hearts they're not "out to get Russia", that's paranoid delusion talk.

But, if the first reaction of the West to this war in Ukraine is that it's an opportunity to weaken Russia, a geopolitical rival ... then obviously NATO was indeed threatening Russia all along.

Now, being threatened by real weapons systems in the real world does not then justify any action, but it does make this story of "unprovoked attack" absurd propaganda. If you threaten me and I punch you in the face, I could definitely still be in the wrong and be convicted of assault, but it wasn't unprovoked.

But to focus on the central issue we've been discussing: — boethius

In other words, the blablabla was so far out of focus, and therefore ornamental.

HOW DO YOU INTERPRET THIS BEHAVIOR IF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS ARE JUST AN ORNAMENTAL AND NOTHING CERTAIN? — neomac


I have said adding the word "guarantee" to a promise is ornamental. The texts of international agreements still matter for what they actually do: coordinate actions of willing participants. — boethius

ROFL. So finally you are agreeing with me [1], then you must (logical requirement) no longer claim it's “ornamental” or “zero meaning” (on pain of inconsistency).
Besides, your smartass claim was due to an issue with the word “guarantee”, really?! Poor you! And what would be the legal expression you would use instead?! "Security ornaments"?! "Ornamental guarantees"?! “Ornamental ornaments”?! The legal expression "security guarantees" is perfectly intelligible because concerns the task of hedging against geopolitical risks coming from Russia and it implies greater costs than e.g. "security assurances". Besides no rational geopolitical actor can possibly misunderstand the meaning of "security guaranties" the way you suggest. Conclusion: yours is just an embarrassingly overblown straw man argument. Q.E.D.

THE MEMBERSHIP WASN'T IMMINENT — neomac

But to focus on another error in analysis. Everyone says that the footsie between NATO and Ukraine, even if we do see NATO policy is to forward deploy under stupid pretext (like "Iran" needs to be defended from the Baltics ... no closer NATO country or US / NATO base to Iran is convenient for that purpose), didn't matter because Ukraine wasn't going to join NATO anytime soon.

How would the Russians actually know what's imminent or not? — boethius

Blablabla, just to change subject while still implicitly proving that such agreements are not ornamental at all! Catastrophic!

Congrats for your epic fail, dude!


[1]

To the extent there is an international law and rational agents engage in it, there must be some reasonable application for it, independently from any arbitrarily high standard of reliability and compatibly with power balance/struggle concerns. The reason to me is obvious: the international legal framework increases transparency and trust, given the coordinated and codified procedures/roadmap to monitor and measure commitment and implied costs. — neomac

You are claiming that "these sorts of agreements are purely ornamental". I claim that this claim of yours show "completely ignorant understanding of international relations". International law has its use (addressing coordination issues) and can help in increasing transparency and trust. For that reason, rational political agents are engaging in it. — neomac

Did you read my answer to that question, re. the tanks? Maybe we can stop asking queestions that have been answered already. — Olivier5

You mean:

I would think that the reasons for this are that tanks cost a lost of money, are in short supply, and you don't want the enemy to get hold of them. — Olivier5

That you believe this is sufficient explanatory power?

For the airforce support I believe an additional issue would be related to avoid escalating the war. — Olivier5

Escalating the war to what? A war Ukraine can win? And if there going to win anyways, just barely, why not have them win sooner and save plenty of lives?

Your position is that Ukraine can and will win ... but just barely after a maximum amount of preventable Ukrainian suffering, because if they won an inch faster that would be an escalation?

Just because folks have opinions and share them here, does not make those a form of "parroting" of anyone. ssu and @SophistiCat have been critical of Zelensky after the Polish missile incident, and that is evidently at a variance with Ukrainian propaganda. You guys don't like it when we disagree with you, fair enough, but we are not parroting the enemies of the folks you are parroting. — Olivier5

Anyways, just so people are aware:

If his country is attacked, it is totally logical for him to try to get as much assistance. That's the urge for a no-fly-zone earlier in the war. And because of the nuclear deterrent, that possibility was totally out of the question. Now later a gaffe that he has backtracked seems have you and Isaac all over for many pages describing the wickedness of the Ukrainians. — ssu

Is from @ssu and not my description. If you cite someone citing someone else, you should put in the effort to format things so that's clear ... at least retain the default behaviour which is still to copy the person's name and a dash, so it's clear it's a citation (just can't tell when it started without additional effort put into make your post clear).

However, as I mention previously, I will go over the entire discussion when I have time to verify if indeed pro-Zelensky proponents aren't changing their positions to just reflect or defend what Zelensky or Ukrainian intelligence is saying at the moment.

I am struck by how quickly our good friend boethius here is prompt to lose the plot, or change the goal post. First he says Ukraine is part of no collective, then that the UN -- which includes Ukraine -- does not define itself as a collective, and when proved wrong on it, he then segues into the UN not currently operating as a collective... Well, it does and it does not, depending. — Olivier5

Proving what? A "collective" (as defined by the dictionary) has collective interests and collective actions and policies.

The UN is mainly a diplomatic tool for different actual collectives (called nation states) to meet and try negotiate opposing (rather than collective) interests. Of course, from time to time and on some issues all interests align, or sufficiently so, and there's collective action on that point. But to say the UN brings the US, Russia, Ukraine, China, Iran etc. into one "collective" one unitary political body, is absurd.

For example, contract the "United Nations" with the "United States of America". True, they both have the word "United" in their name, and, true, they both bring together different states into interaction and some shared resources and some collective actions, they even both have some sort of leader. However, the United States of America in an actual collective providing actual collective security to it's member states, and the United Nations is very much a different thing.

Collective is not a good word to describe the United Nations and even if it was is a terrible example of a "collective" in the sense of "collective security" that Ukraine is apart of ... because Russia too is apart of the United Nations.

It's almost unbelievable that that detail is lost on you guys. Bringing up the UN as a potential "collective" in which to invoke "collective security" (the topic of discussion) is just completely absurd as not only is Russia a member of the same "collective" but Russia is a far more powerful member with a veto on whatever the UN even tries to do on topics of security.

And then you accuse others of losing the plot?

I NEVER MADE SUCH A CLAIM, YOU LIAR, quote where I did! I just claimed that "security guarantees" (or equivalent) are neither "ornamental" nor "meaningless" and that it’s rational for Zelensky to pursue them based on the current geopolitical and historical circumstances.
That is supported by the quotations I previously reported. — neomac

I don't have time for the rest of your post just now, but I'd like to point out the reading comprehension that, perhaps, you could spend some time in the meanwhile to reflect on.

What do I say, that you literally cite just above your reaction?

Now, if you're saying Zelensky knows that security guarantees are only ornamental fluff to promises that will only be kept if it suits the promising party to keep the promise (aka. a nominal but meaningless promise), then I'd be happy to hear that Zelensky isn't delusional on this point of international relations. — boethius

Key words: "If you're saying".

It's called "if" followed by a "then".

It was honestly unclear to me what your position has evolved into with all the goal post moving around.

So, if your position is A, then B.

You can clarify that your position is "not-A", which you have done.

As for your position, you literally cite as evidence for your position ... evidence that supports my position, such as international law is a voluntary thing (so obviously guarantees also voluntary, which is the opposite of guarantees).

All you're discovering is that "guarantees" is euphemism for "trust us bro" (as I've been explaining) and, sure, it can be reasonable for Zelensky to get whatever promises and statements of trust he can in a deal, but "guarantees" are purely ornamental. If the US goes back on its word in the future (such as make certain "assurances" it doesn't give a shit about now), Ukraine will have no recourse. If Ukrainians complain "but I thought it was guaranteed" ... what's the answer going to be from the neocon appreciation brigade on reddit defending the US's position? "All is fair in love and war," or maybe "life's not fair, take care of your own security" etc.

In addition, you are discovering the nominal world can be very different to the real world of actual substance.

For example, I sell you a lemon, I guarantee you it's sour. You want to be sure so ask for that guarantee in writing, as you want it actually guaranteed and for some crazy reasons if the lemon turns out not to be sour you'll suffer incredibly high damages.

So, I go and write a contract and I call it the "Boethius lemon super promise hyper guarantee" and in this contract I write clauses that explain I am not liable for anything.

You read it and explain I'm not guaranteeing anything with this contract, and I respond "but it's got guarantee right in the title of the contract, you're crazy."

What do we learn, that simply calling something a guarantee doesn't make it a guarantee. If there's zero consequence for me delivering a non-sour lemon or even no lemon at all, it maybe a nominal guarantee as it's a contract with guarantee in the contract but in the real world of actual substance it is not a guarantee as there's nothing to keep me to my word.

Guarantee in the context of agreements refers to some actual consequence for not delivering.

In this case of US guaranteeing something to Ukraine, no such consequence would be there, so no guarantee is there in actual substance of the real things in the world.

Now, maybe US keeps it's word anyways, but maybe not.

Again, think about things for a few seconds. If you ask me for that lemon, and I say I'll get it to you but maybe not, and you say "man, I really need to be sure, can you guarantee it" and I say "zero problems guaranteeing it, I guarantee you I'll get you that lemon, but of course maybe not, things could shake out that way" and then you say "that's not a guarantee then!!!" and then I say "but I literally just said I guarantee it to you!! ... just, with the added information that maybe not, because nothing is actually guaranteed."

This is the kind of confusion you get yourself into if you mixup nominal ornamental things with real things in the world. There is a difference between calling something a "guarantee" and that thing being a guarantee in some substantive way.

More appropriate term that describes reality would be that what diplomats call "security guarantees" are actually in the real world of substance "security reasons". They maybe reasons to accept the deal, they may even actually happen, but they are not guarantees in some substantive contractual sense of guarantee.

Blablabla, just to change subject while still implicitly proving that such agreements are not ornamental at all! Catastrophic!

Congrats for your epic fail, dude! — neomac

I go to some length to explain that agreements coordinate actions between willing participants, and also solve catch 22 situation where one party is willing only if another party is too.

In the case of Russia evaluating NATO-Ukraine footsie, it maybe well aware that US promises such as:

“We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO,” NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer told a news conference, reading from a communique agreed at a summit of the pact’s 26 leaders in Bucharest.

“That is quite something,” he added. — Reuters

Are meaningless insofar as promises go. Maybe US has zero intention of ever letting Ukraine join NATO.

However, that Russia knows what promises from a more powerful state to a less powerless state are worth, it cannot know what the US actually intends or will do if the circumstances change.

You have simply strawmanned my position with conflating the ornamental nature of guarantee with the idea no one ever does what they promise.

Promises can be kept between nations, but because the promising party believed at the time of the agreement and continues to believe that it was a reasonable promise to make and in their interests to keep it. Adding "guarantee" or other flowery language is of minor consideration.

For example:

There's been this bizarre historical revisionism that Ukraine should have held out for "guarantees" rather than settle for "assurances" in the "Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances".

Since these "assurances" turned out to mean nothing, the thinking is that people knew that at the time.

But what's the substantive actual meaning of "assurances" ... is it really "means nothing"? Obviously not, at the time assurances was meaningful.

It's only since these assurances turned out to be meaningless that "assurances" have become a euphemism for "nice things people say sometimes" in international political analysis.

If the assurances turned out to be meaningful in 2014 when Ukraine first started complaining about the "commitments" not being kept, then people would not go around today saying these assurances were meaningless, they would point to US and other signatory actions as clear evidence of the meaning of the assurances.

If a new agreement is struck and called "The guarantees agreement" and then the day comes where whatever is guaranteed should be fulfilled ... and it's not, then "guarantee" would be the new euphemism for what people say because it sounded nice at the time.

The last clause states: "6. Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America will consult in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning these commitments."

Which, notice the actual promise is only to "consult" ... but as far as I know these parties didn't do even that. Well what exactly is the meaning of "commitments" if all you're actually promising to do is "consult" about questions concerning them?

Any new agreement will be in the exact ontological and epistemological and legal status as the "Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances".

The mistake was not "ah, damn, if only we held out for the word 'guarantee', then Russia could not have invaded."

The mistake was not navigating political reality since in a competent and non-delusional way and believing NATO's promises were meaningful from Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, rather than consider the possibility that NATO may not be able to offer meaningful protection ... at least not from the destruction that has been brought to Ukraine so far.

when you act to preserve your life in the face of a lethal threat, your actions can't be condemned, even if your actions result in the death of your attacker. — frank

Just restating it doesn't make it true. If I dropped a nuclear bomb on your neighborhood because I was justifiably concerned you were going to kill me, people would definitely condemn my actions. The collateral damage my actions resulted in would be out out of proportion to the harm I was trying to avoid.

Just ignoring the counterargument doesn't render it met.

Your position is that Ukraine can and will win ... but just barely after a maximum amount of preventable Ukrainian suffering, because if they won an inch faster that would be an escalation? — boethius

It’s not my position. You’re very easily confused. I just tried to provide you with an answer to your question, based on what I heard and what seems reasonable to me. You are welcome to address my explainations, but they are not « my position ».

Note that the suffering is mutual. Over the past few months, the evidence is that the Russians suffered the most. I wonder why you keep forgeting their sufferings… not allowed in the putinista narrative I guess. Russians ought to be depicted as victors, always.

Just restating it doesn't make it true. If I dropped a nuclear bomb on your neighborhood because I was justifiably concerned you were going to kill me, people would definitely condemn my actions. The collateral damage my actions resulted in would be out out of proportion to the harm I was trying to avoid. — Isaac

True. Shooting me in the head would be legal though.

Key words: "If you're saying".

It's called "if" followed by a "then".

It was honestly unclear to me what your position has evolved into with all the goal post moving around. — boethius

Still a liar, my position didn't evolve. It's your understanding of it that did. Still in the wrong direction! Besides, the fact that you use a if-then statement to make your reasoning sound more plausible is still dishonest in suggesting that I'm agreeing with the way you framed the antecedent of the statement which also keeps echoing the claim "An obvious reality you seem finally to agree with". By putting your words in my mouth, you keep suggesting a conceptual framing that you have no reason at all to use to formulate my claims (actual or hypothetical), because I expressly and repeatedly objected against it.

All you're discovering is that "guarantees" is euphemism for "trust us bro" (as I've been explaining) and, sure, it can be reasonable for Zelensky to get whatever promises and statements of trust he can in a deal, but "guarantees" are purely ornamental.

This is a caricature of what it's understood by "security guarantee". The military cooperation between the US/NATO and Ukraine is the reason why Russia is still fighting, even without agreement on paper, go figure!
— boethius

If the US goes back on its word in the future (such as make certain "assurances" it doesn't give a shit about now), Ukraine will have no recourse. If Ukrainians complain "but I thought it was guaranteed" ... what's the answer going to be from the neocon appreciation brigade on reddit defending the US's position? "All is fair in love and war," or maybe "life's not fair, take care of your own security" etc. — boethius

But your conjectures do not prove anything from a geopolitical point of view. What gives meaning to such agreements is the actual geopolitical and historical circumstances, and their trends.

What do we learn, that simply calling something a guarantee doesn't make it a guarantee. — boethius

This claim is as obvious as "nothing certain in life". Nothing substantively relevant for geopolitical analysis and explanation.

Guarantee in the context of agreements refers to some actual consequence for not delivering. — boethius

Wrong, there can be consequences. These are implied material and reputational costs at least. At worst hegemonic influence.

More appropriate term that describes reality would be that what diplomats call "security guarantees" are actually in the real world of substance "security reasons". They maybe reasons to accept the deal, they may even actually happen, but they are not guarantees in some substantive contractual sense of guarantee. — boethius

There is a contractual sense of "security guarantees" as long as there is a legal codification. The point is that contract between states is not the same as contract between persons since there is no authority that can enforce contract the way a central state can do with individuals. That's all. In any case, that doesn't imply AT ALL that the meaning of such agreements are ornamental or meaningless.

You have simply strawmanned my position with conflating the ornamental nature of guarantee with the idea no one ever does what they promise. — boethius

I didn't claim that either. Indeed you can not quote me, you have to invent a putative conflation between ideas that I never stated nor implied. You are a pathological liar.

Still a liar, my position didn't evolve. — neomac

You went from "pre-condition" to "rational requirement" to "considering the nuclear deterrence they both had" ... that I remind you "Ukraine doesn't have!" but apparently that had no relation to your original use of the word "pre-condition".

That you were just pointing out US and Soviet Union had nuclear weapons, Ukraine doesn't have nuclear weapons, the nuclear weapons was a precondition for "something" ... just not the kind of deals we were actually talking about that Ukraine also agreed to.

But your conjectures do not prove anything from a geopolitical point of view. What gives meaning to such agreements is the actual geopolitical and historical circumstances, and their trends. — neomac

You start by contradicting my position, that guarantees aren't ornamental ... and then just repeat my position back to me.

We engage with promises that aren't guaranteed in any sense of the word all the time: All the way to the altar. It's in fact the usual state of affairs that people can break their promises to us. Of course, there can be plenty of reasons to trust someone even if there is no real consequence to them for breaking their word to you.

There is very particular (and unusual) set of contractual promises in which guarantee is not ornamental. A company sells you something and guarantees the delivery date, quality, etc. and doesn't deliver, there is actual legal recourse to recover the damages. Of course, not guaranteed in the sense of certainty, but in this legal recourse sense.

Now, if the word "guarantee" is ornamental and basically a euphemism for "trust me bro" then we are indeed in agreement that you'd need to be evaluating other things to decide if the United States, or any other state, is actually going to keep their word.

You've basically transitioned into this euphemistic use of the word guarantee: not certain, not legal, no legal recourse ... but what's the status of such a promise with the word guarantee attached?

It's: trust me bro.

Now, maybe Biden, Sunak, Macron and the rest of them, really are Zelensky's bro's and they got his back for personal bro code reasons that are personal to them, even if it's against the interest of their respective nations. Maybe Zelensky can feel that bro spirit and knows the promises will be fulfilled when the time comes. Or, maybe Zelensky evaluates "historical trends" and determines that whatever is promised will be delivered for a bunch of reasons. Or maybe Zelensky has some leverage that would increase the cost of any party not respecting the deal, for instance we've already discussed the cost to Russia for another war would be primarily ... the cost of another war, Zelensky or a new Ukrainian presidents leverage being the fighting of another war. Zelensky could maybe have some leverage on the US, UK et. al. such as invading Poland or something, that would increase the cost of unkept promises.

I explain at some length that there can be other reasons outside of what wording is used in an agreement to believe that people, even an entire nation, will keep their word: nearly all of it is called circumstances and leverage.

However, if you want to be more certain than what amounts to futurology of historical trends, if you want a real and substantive "guarantee" from the parties, to be really sure they're keeping their word on their honour: is not on offer in international relations.

Note that the suffering is mutual. Over the past few months, the evidence is that the Russians suffered the most. I wonder why you keep forgeting their sufferings… — Olivier5

As has been pointed out time and time again, what matters in the question of who will win this war and how is the capacity to absorb suffering, not the raw numbers.

If the Russian military losses indicate a likely win for Ukraine you shouldn't have the slightest trouble finding a military or strategic expert stating as much.

As it is you have to resort to citing your co-Zelenskyites on here because virtually every single expert on the matter has concluded that Ukraine are either quite unlikely or very unlikely to win back the territory they are aiming to regain.

The matter at hand is, and always has been, should Ukraine cut their losses and negotiate. Most of the sane world are saying 'yes' at this point. In a few weeks, the media-train will catch up, and upon recieving your new instructions, you'll pretend like that was your position all along.

True. — frank

Right. So your comment was meaningless.

If Zelensky's actions were proportionate to the harm being mitigated, then they were justified.

If Zelensky's actions were not proportionate to the harm being mitigated, then they were not justified.

So what matters is whether Zelensky's actions were proportionate to the harm being mitigated...

...which is exactly what we were discussing before your mindless interjection.

which is exactly what we were discussing before your mindless interjection. — Isaac

I think you're kind of over doing it tho. Back to USD's and GBP's.

It’s not my position. You’re very easily confused. I just tried to provide you with an answer to your question, based on what I heard and what seems reasonable to me. You are welcome to address my explainations, but they are not « my position ». — Olivier5

You are really saying after hundreds of pages of arguing the situation in Ukraine, that your position is not Ukraine is fighting a just war, can will, will win and therefore should keep fighting to victory?

Or something very, very close to that ... so close, that this is an accurate and reasonable summary of your position?

Note that the suffering is mutual. Over the past few months, the evidence is that the Russians suffered the most. I wonder why you keep forgeting their sufferings… not allowed in the putinista narrative I guess. Russians ought to be depicted as victors, always. — Olivier5

First, the suffering is not mutual. Ukrainian economy is in free fall, entire cities severely damaged or abandoned, industry in disarray and now the Russians are turning off the lights. Should somebody stop them? Maybe ... but I don't see anyone going and doing that.

In simple military terms, Russians have withdrawn from one week point (West of the Dnieper) and one strategically unimportant area (around Kharkiv).

Zero questions this is not desirable for the Russians and no questions it is embarrassing, especially Kherson. I am 100% aware that annexing territory and then withdrawing from it looks dumb. But that's intense warfare. UK, France, US, Germany, Japan, Russia all had embarrassing setbacks in WWII.

However, embarrassment is not suffering.

Ukraine paid a high cost for their offensives as well as continuing to pressure Russian force. We do not know the cost exactly, obviously every estimate will be accused of bias.

What we can know is that it would be common military wisdom that if the Ukrainians are attacking and in addition the Russians are able to withdraw without being routed, that Ukrainian losses, aka. suffering, will be higher than the Russians.

In other words, if Russia is suffering more losses than Ukraine while defending, that would be unexpected.

Second, to expand on what @Isaac just explained to you, the amount of territory the Russians are occupying is pretty significant.

As I described months ago, what actually matters at this stage in the war is losses multiplied by the distance covered.

We don't know what the losses are, but what amount of losses would be worth it to you?

For example, assuming that it took 100 000 dead Ukrainians to get this far, and just "eyeballing it" at this rate it's going to take another 200 000 to 300 000 Ukrainian KIA to reconquer the rest of the territory, would you pay that price?

You went from "pre-condition" to "rational requirement" to "considering the nuclear deterrence they both had" ... that I remind you "Ukraine doesn't have!" but apparently that had no relation to your original use of the word "pre-condition". — boethius

Good summary of your neverending misunderstanding, troll. May view didn't evolve. Here is my statement: 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. The word "pre-condition" here expresses a rational requirement for geopolitical agents. And it applies differently in the case the US negotiating with Soviet Union and in the case of Ukraine negotiating with Russia.

You start by contradicting my position, that guarantees aren't ornamental ... and then just repeat my position back to me. — boethius

"Security guarantees" are not "ornamental" or "zero meaning" from a geopolitical point of view. But you think I'm repeating your position because you misunderstand mine. There is nothing in your reasoning that compels me to find the word "ornament" as appropriate replacement for "security guarantees". Even contracts enforced by central state are not guarantee in the sense of certainty. Legal justice more often than we hope can fail us for all kinds of reasons. Are they ornamental for that reason or State is not the guarantor of legal justice? No.
What is fallacious in your reasoning is that we are compelled to consider with "zero meaning" the "security guarantee" just because the word "guarantee" suggests to you certainty. This reasoning is utterly dumb and has no ground in geopolitical rationality. Indeed you are incapable of providing any parties (Russian or Ukrainian or Western) that understand the word "guarantee" the way you suggest.
So you built a fictitious "straw man" to argue against. That's how intellectually desperate you are.

You've basically transitioned into this euphemistic use of the word guarantee: not certain, not legal, no legal recourse — boethius

I didn't transition at all. Depending on the way the security guarantees (or NATO membership) is legally codified there might be occasions also for legal recourse, obviously.

I explain at some length that there can be other reasons outside of what wording is used in an agreement to believe that people, even an entire nation, will keep their word: nearly all of it is called circumstances and leverage. — boethius

I did it repeatedly before you did.

What is fallacious in your reasoning is that we are compelled to consider with "zero meaning" the "security guarantee" just because the word "guarantee" suggests to you certainty. This reasoning is utterly dumb and has no ground in geopolitical rationality. Indeed you are incapable of providing any parties (Russian or Ukrainian or Western) that understand the word "guarantee" the way you suggest.
So you built a fictitious "straw man" to argue against. That's how intellectually desperate you are. — neomac

You are literally describing how the word "guarantee" doesn't literally mean "guarantee" ... as why would it be a guarantee in any sense of certainty.

In other words, according to your own explanation, guarantee in this context is ornamental and a euphemism for "trust us bro".

Can we count on these "guarantees": of course not! Don't be silly! is your new position.

Again, you may have "bro trends" or bro leverage or other broformation particular to the broverse in which you base your decision to trust your bros. But is the bro code 100% reliable, "guaranteed" in any meaningful sense. Alas, t'is not.

However, embarrassment is not suffering. — boethius

The only reason they left Kherson was the suffering they went through there.

would you pay that price? — boethius

What is it with your obsession with little me? This war is not about me. I pay no price for it, or very little.

The matter at hand is, and always has been, should Ukraine cut their losses and negotiate. Most of the sane world are saying 'yes' at this point. In a few weeks, the media-train will catch up, and upon recieving your new instructions, you'll pretend like that was your position all along. — Isaac

You’ve been saying that for 8 month.

You are literally describing how the word "guarantee" doesn't literally mean "guarantee" ... as why would it be a guarantee in any sense of certainty. — boethius

Guarantee in a sense of certainty doesn't exist anywhere with the reliability of a physical law or mathematical truth. "Guarantee" just expresses a formal commitment to act in a certain way. In geopolitics the nature of the "security guarantee" commitment under discussion is to be distinguished from "security assurance" because the nature of military cooperation should be much more substantial in the former case (comparable to NATO membership). That is the only sense that is relevant for geopolitical reasoning.

Can we count on these "guarantees": of course not! Don't be silly! is your new position. — boethius

Not new, liar. It's simply what is left of your preposterous position to hang on because for all the rest you have capitulated already. You need badly to attribute it "zero meaning" because it probably helps you question the rationality of Zelensky's demands. But you are failing in doing so. Badly.

Again, you may have "bro trends" or bro leverage or other broformation particular to the broverse in which you base your decision to trust your bros. But is the bro code 100% reliable, "guaranteed" in any meaningful sense. Alas, t'is not. — boethius

Since you can't quote literally any parties to support your claim, you invent your own fictional evidences. You look so dumb, bro.

You’ve been saying that for 8 month. — Olivier5

This process has been happening for 8 months.

For example, media believed man-portable systems were enough to "beat the Russians", gushed unending praise ... eventually caught up with the reality that wasn't the case.

In the summer Ukraine, the war was all but declared over aft the Russians withdrew from the North, and Ukraine was declared "winning" even if they were steadily losing ground, and eventually the media caught up with that reality.

Right now, while Ukraine has been making advances, media has been gushing praise on Zelensky's uncompromising diplomatic positions, but is slowly catching up to the reality that we have not witnessed decisive battles, collapse of Russian forces and / or the economy and / or the political system, and the media is slowly catching up this reality.

Always weeks and weeks after it is obvious.

The only reason they left Kherson was the suffering they went through. — Olivier5

What is it with your obsession with little me? This war is not about me. I pay no price for it, or very little. — Olivier5

You're the one debating here. Why would I join a discussion to discuss with people that are absent?

But, if you don't have the courage of your convictions to lay out a reasonable price to pay for reconquering all of Ukraine, seems indeed you no longer have any position at all in this discussion. I'll note that down.

Since you can't quote literally any parties to support your claim, you invent your own fictional evidences. You look so dumb, bro. — neomac

You clearly just have no reading comprehension.

The claim that "security guarantees" are as meaningful as "trust us bro" is the claim that, just like between bros promising a sick and whack party, as you've already noted yourself, there's only "historical trends" in which to evaluate if the party will indeed be sick and whack. For instance, if your bros have thrown sick and whack parties previously, then stands to reason that this new party they speak of will be of a similar mintage. However, adding embellishment to the basic promise that the "party will be good" neither guarantees the party will in fact be good nor even guarantees it will happen at all. If your bros absolutely, positively, guarantee you, 100% fresh, the party is both happening and will be incredible ... we are no closer to being any more certain than we are based on the "historical trends" of these party throwers.

Compare this to a company guaranteeing your computer will turn on. If it doesn't, you have legal recourse for damages and can sue this company. Could Ukraine sue the US for not keeping a promise? No.

It doesn't matter how you dress up the promise, Ukraine will have no legal resource and have no reason other than, you put your finger on it, "historical trends" in which to decide the likelihood promises will be kept in an agreement.

Calling the promises "security guarantees" does indeed sound fancy and something you can trust from ol' country, but it's a euphemism. It is a noun in the nominal world referring to an agreement, but that agreement can completely lack any guarantee.

Just like, nominally, the "Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances" is very assuring indeed ... but if you actually read it, the actual real substance doesn't seem too assuring at all and didn't actually happen when the time came to "assure" Ukraine about the promises made.

If it was actually assuring, representing some sort of real assuring substance of some kind, there would be no need for talk of any new security guarantees now, mighty fine nations have already committed to making sure Ukraine's borders are respected, so let them do that as they said they would.

Of course they'll have to consult first, but that's just the first step of a much bigger plan they are clearly committed to.

So, considering the Security Assurances were ornamental addition to what amounted to "trust us bro", why would just renaming what is in essence the same thing to "security guarantees" be a single gram of coke lighter than "trust us bro".

For people actually interested in the topic.

What is confusing in this subject matter of international treatise, is that they are written in highly legal language and very formal, but they are of the same nature as informal and unenforceable agreements, similar to just most promises in normal life: promises of love, promises of taking out the trash, promises of being on time, and other informal promises as you may find between bros that have no standing in a court of law.

Of course, your bros may actually love you and be on time to your sick and whack party, even helping to clean up and take out the trash in the morning, but there's no legal recourse if they don't.

Normal people are like OMG the assurances weren't assurances in the Budapest Memorandum, but only because normal people are accustomed to any legal paper being a formal agreement that has legal standing (work contracts, insurance policies, sale terms, and so on) and, almost never, are the informal promises of daily life cast in a formal language.

But, to understand what is really going on in these international relations, just stop and imagine if you made some legal looking paper for promises that you know don't need to be kept. It's fun and ceremonial, maybe has some useful information to note such as keep track of some important information (like who's taking out the compost and when), but it is not really a contract like your work contract is a contract.

So, maybe people do what they say, but evaluating that would have little to do with your little legal ceremony.

But, if you don't have the courage of your convictions to lay out a reasonable price to pay for reconquering all of Ukraine, seems indeed you no longer have any position at all in this discussion. I'll note that down. — boethius

I’m not in the business of putting price tags in human blood over territories, if that’s what you are asking.

I’m not in the business of putting price tags in human blood over territories — Olivier5

Then by what metric do you determine your support for, say, continued drip-feed arms to Ukraine?

On what grounds do you agree with Zelensky's uncompromising position on negotiations?

"I agree with Zelensky because..."

...ends how?

Compare this to a company guaranteeing your computer will turn on. If it doesn't, you have legal recourse for damages and can sue this company. Could Ukraine sue the US for not keeping a promise? — boethius

Of course, if there is an adequate legal codification behind the "security guarantees". Yet that doesn't imply that there will be justice to Ukrainian satisfaction. But this happens also within legal systems where individuals are suing e.g. big companies which have the material resources and political ties to grant them impunity. That doesn't make such legal system an ornament either.
Besides the "security guarantees" may involve European parties too, not only the US.
The main problem with your view is that talking about certainty independently from geopolitical and historical considerations is pointless. Nothing that geopolitical actors can work with. The reason why you are blabbering about it is because you likely want to argue that Ukrainian demands for security guarantees are irrational. Indeed how can a State rationally rely on something that is ornamental, with zero meaning and equates to a cheap/hypocritical flatus vocis like "trust us bro" that any random boethius can endlessly troll anybody about?
That's precisely how dumb your dialectic strategy is.

the "Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances" is very assuring indeed ... but if you actually read it, the actual real substance doesn't seem too assuring at all and didn't actually happen when the time came to "assure" Ukraine about the promises made. — boethius

First, the violation of the Budapest Memorandum is taken into account [1] to condemn Russian violation of international laws (which justifies sanctions and military support to Ukraine). Second, as I have already explained "security guarantees" are precisely contrasted with "security assurances", because the nature of the commitment would be much more costly for those who are engaging in it, legally speaking as well: The Budapest Memorandum was negotiated at political level, but it is not entirely clear whether the instrument is devoid entirely of legal provisions. It refers to assurances, but unlike guarantees, it does not impose a legal obligation of military assistance on its parties. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum) Third, the historical circumstances for the Budapest Memorandum were different from the ones we are living now and the purpose of the Memorandum as well is different from the one addressed by the security guarantees: "Scholars assumed at the time that Ukraine's decision to sign the Budapest Memorandum was proof of Ukraine's development as a democracy and its desire to step away from the post-Soviet world and make first steps toward a European future. For 20 years, until the 2014 Russian military occupation of regions of Ukraine,[50] the Ukrainian nuclear disarmament was an exemplary case of nuclear non-proliferation. " (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum)

Anyways West/NATO/US and Ukraine understanding of what is at stake geopolitically speaking will determine what form of military cooperation [2] must be implemented at the expense of Russia as long as Russia is perceived as a non-negligible threat to the West. So is it rational for Zelensky to pursue security guarantees or equivalent, and for us to believe that some form of security guarantees will be implemented? Given the current circumstances, it's more rational than believing the opposite based on fictional scenarios, or on the preposterous idea that such agreements are ornamental.

I would take you more seriously if you could convincingly argue that the West/NATO/US has actually lost interest/resources or will likely lose interest/resources to support Ukraine against Russia. Alas, it's not the case.

[1]
We the Leaders of the Group of Seven (G7) are appalled by and condemn the large-scale military aggression by the Russian Federation against the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, directed partly from Belarusian soil. This unprovoked and completely unjustified attack on the democratic state of Ukraine was preceded by fabricated claims and unfounded allegations. It constitutes a serious violation of international law and a grave breach of the United Nations Charter and all commitments Russia entered in the Helsinki Final Act and the Charter of Paris and its commitments in the Budapest Memorandum. We as the G7 are bringing forward severe and coordinated economic and financial sanctions. We call on all partners and members of the international community to condemn this attack in the strongest possible terms, to stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine, and raise their voice against this blatant violation of the fundamental principles of international peace and security.
https://uk.ambafrance.org/G7-condemns-Russian-invasion-of-Ukraine

[2]
Security guarantees come from two main sources: 1) collective security organizations (NATO is the most greatest example) and 2) bilateral defence treaties (for example, Mutual Defense Treaty between the United States and the Republic of Korea, The Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between Japan and the United States of America etc.).
Security guarantees are usually defined in the text of a treaty as a duty “to come to one`s defense when it faces external aggression”. In comparison, security assurances are commonly contained in other international legal acts and are expressed in terms of a promise “to provide cooperation and aid (or “assistance”) in case of aggression”. That means that security guarantees impose much stronger obligation, than assurances do, because they are inferred from the source of international law – an international treaty (subject to Art. 38 of IC Charter).
This guarantee means the guarantor’s direct participation in protection of recipient’s national security. Therefore it is usually accompanied by the deployment of guarantor’s armed forces (or assurer) on the recipient’s territory, by creation of joint military headquarters and joint armed squads/units etc.
https://www.academia.edu/16541504/Legal_Notion_of_the_Terms_Security_Assurances_Security_Guarantees_and_Reassurances_in_International_Security_Law