[Politics] Russia invades Ukraine (24/02/2022)

[Eric the meek]

And anyway - the peace is dependant on a third party. You can't have a contract between Ukraine and the US guaranteeing peace - it could only guarantee some form of help fighting Russia. The US cannot guarantee a Russian ceasefire / withdrawal.

Then, if the Ukrainians are asking for a security guarantee, and the US cannot provide that guarantee, then there is no deal to be made.

 

[raymondo]

Then, if the Ukrainians are asking for a security guarantee, and the US cannot provide that guarantee, then there is no deal to be made.

I even think further US weapons supplied would come with usage caveats...

 

[Eric the meek]

And after a deal is signed, and some weapons delivered from the US, Trump will say..."oh no, you can't attack russian refineries with those, you can't do this, you can't do that..." Ukraine are being stitched up, I'm sure.

I can't imagine that the Ukrainians would not insist on clauses to prevent that kind of thing happening again. They've been stung by that already.

(Sorry for the double negative. It's getting late).

 

[raymondo]

I hope you're right Mr Snyder:
"

 

[Eric the meek]

I hope you're right Mr Snyder:
"

Perhaps. Maybe the arrogance of being in power for a month is beginning to fade.

But key for me, is why would Ukraine accept a deal that does not give them what they want - a just and lasting peace?

 

[GoldstoneVintage]

Superb (as always) from Timothy Snyder:

"Recoup the costs"

The sadism of American policy to war-torn Ukraine

open.substack.com

 

[marlowe]

Which laws are followed for international deals?

The peace treaties at the end of wars usually have some coercion.

I don't know. The original draft agreement which Zelensky rejected was going to be under the jurisdiction of a New York Court but that condition has allegedly now been removed from the new proposal.

The coercion implied by other treaties you refer to is usually towards the defeated army who have surrendered and imposed by the victorious army.

However, in this case Ukraine are not surrendering and they are not being declared the defeated. And also unusual to this agreement is the fact that the conditions are not being imposed by the victorious army (as there isn't one) but by an outside party who are not even one of the warring parties.

All the conditions of the agreement are being imposed on Ukraine, none on Russia as Russia are not even party to the agreement..

And in fact its not even a peace treaty as peace isn't even a condition of the agreement. Its essentially just a business transaction between the US and Ukraine and the war appears to be free to continue. In fact the continuation of hostilities appears essential to the agreement as that is the basis of the conditions of the agreement which is ongoing support during the hostilities.

So the US are essentially profiteering from the continuation of hostilities. It wasn't in Trump's interests to negotiate a peace treaty and he clearly hasn't. It's probably why he didn't want Ukraine or Europe involved in the so called "negotiations" with Russia as he didn't want them to know the lack of effort he had gone to towards achieving peace. He probably merely expressed his gratitude to Putin for putting the circumstances in place and maintaining them to enable him to secure this very profitable business transaction for the US (and Musk).

 

[marlowe]

'THE ART OF THE DEAL'"