https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/11/14/kherson-zelensky-atrocities-ukraine-war/

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.

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

Say, is it acceptable to return the children? :up: Is refusal acceptable? :down: I don't see any good reason that the Ukrainians would tolerate that the Russian government and the pseudo-parents insist on kidnapping.

the situation with the children has come up among peace criteria and whatnot — jorndoe

And so refusal might be a peace blocker, which really would be too bad. For that matter, is there a sufficient reason that anyone would let them get away with it? Already illegal in most places (for a reason). Could repeat your choice of words: "Disgusting".

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

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? If this is descending into a rhetorical exercise, then I'm not all that interested, though there isn't a sub-forum for that.

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

In whichever way? Countries are presently a political reality. As mentioned, you may deny that reality, that just isn't very helpful. Do you think you can convince the Russians and Ukrainians with such a side track? Besides, expecting agreement in all things is a bit naïve.

Ok so your "supplicantS", plural, would be Russia and Ukraine. Who would your "enforcing power" be? — Olivier5

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.

would tolerate — jorndoe

let them get away with it? — jorndoe

...you're still not specifying what 'not tolerating' consists of. What action indicates 'not tolerating'?

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

I'm afraid I just don't understand what you're saying here at all. It seems you're talking as if there were some obvious understanding between us which need not be said out loud, but there isn't. I cannot make any sense out of that paragraph.

Countries are presently a political reality. As mentioned, you may deny that reality, that just isn't very helpful. — jorndoe

No one is denying that countries exist, not even the worst Russians. They're claiming Ukraine didn't ought to exist. Not that it currently doesn't. Indeed, the fact that it currently does exist seems to be their main beef.

I'm also not claiming that countries don't exist. I'm claiming they don't have a right to exist. They may exist, cease to exist, or change the nature of their existence, entirely according to whatever is best, there's no intrinsic right.

As to enforcing powers, the UN pass for the closest thing we have to a global legal system. — Isaac

The UN cannot enforce anything. Therefore, there's no enforcing power here. Therefore, your conceptual framework doesn't work. Come to think of it, 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.

My comment was not an attempt to establish a general right to sovereignty, applicable to all situations. The observation was to underscore a minimum concession from Russia that could possibly interest the Ukrainians from stopping their fight.

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

What Putin has said is the following:

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

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.

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

Ah, the usual switch.

Loose ground on arguments about what is the case, switch to moralising "virtue signalling is just ethics".

Loose ground on moral arguments switch to what is the case " that's not how things are done".

It's transparent and tiresome.

This comment began this section...

How much should Putin + team be allowed to get away with scot-free? — jorndoe

"Should..." An ethical argument about what ought to be the case.

If you now want to discuss what actually is the case, make a new point, don't hijack this one.

The observation was to underscore a minimum concession from Russia that could possibly interest the Ukrainians from stopping their fight. — Paine

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.

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

Make an argument then. What exactly is preventing Russia making the following deal with Ukraine...

"We don't recognise your right to rule over Donbas, but we will withdraw our forces from there if you stop shelling us"

What physically stops that deal from being struck?

I'll ask you the same question @Olivier5 keeps dodging. With whom was it agreed that Yugoslavia should no longer exist? Who was the 'other party' in that agreement?

the usual switch — Isaac

No switch at all. 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.

To come back to the topic at hand, the issue of illegally displaced people and adopted children would have to be addressed in any such peace agreement, alongside the issue of war prisoners. I would think through a system of 'right of return' for Ukrainian adults and children currently in Russia.

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

Russia has annexed the oblasts of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, and Crimea. The Kremlin today: "This is Russian territory."

What physically stops that deal from being struck? — Isaac

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.

It was not a peace agreement.

I'm afraid I just don't understand what you're saying here at all. — Isaac

Too bad. Maybe I should mention that action is subsequent to figuring things out? Usually anyway. (I don't think Putin is manning the artillery in Ukraine these days. Sleepwalkers aren't part of the considerations.)

I'm also not claiming that countries don't exist. I'm claiming they don't have a right to exist. — Isaac

Still not helpful. :D

It's transparent and tiresome. — Isaac

All over the place here, "Flatten Moscow", ditching countries, rhetorical exercises, ...

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

Still wondering if you're expecting everyone to agree (let alone Putin and the Ukrainians). Sometimes people resort to democracy.

Speaking of flattening, crazies are everywhere (Nov 12, 2022) (again):

Maybe they're just doing their thing for the heck of it.

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

Go on. What is the logical barrier?

the issue of illegally displaced people and adopted children would have to be addressed in any such peace agreement — Olivier5

It would have to first be established that it actually took place. Moscow are denying it. Logically, how can they make a peace deal involving the return of children they don't agree are even in Russia to be returned?

It was not a peace agreement. — Olivier5

It was also not a twenty-first century agreement. Tell me how that's a difference which makes a difference.

Moscow are denying it. — Isaac

Not really, no.

Tell me how that's a difference which makes a difference. — Isaac

You should be able to figure that out by yourself. It's elementary.

Russia has annexed the oblasts of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, and Crimea. The Kremlin today: "This is Russian territory." — Paine

But that would only be relevant if the deal were to stop Ukraine invading the 'new' Russia ie the deal involved the ceding of Ukrainian territory to Russia. Is that something you see being part of the deal? If so, then how might such a deal be struck whilst Russia also recognises Ukraine's territorial integrity?

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

OK so change my offer to...

"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

You can't say that's not a peace deal. What prevents Russia from making such an offer?

Not really, no. — Olivier5

Russian Commissioner for Human Rights Tatyana Moskalkova said that there has never been any forcible transfer of refugees to Russia, noting that those accusations "are all lies."

At least make the bare minimum effort to ground yourself in some kind of reality.

Okay so they deny that anyone was forcefully taken, but not that there are 'refugees'. Fair enough. It follows that one would expect the status of those 'refugees' to be addressed in any peace agreement, for instance through something like a 'right of return' for all 'refugees', including children.

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

Although I agree with your criticism of false dichotomies and barriers to peace tossed around to justify more violence without any coherent plan, I think it's useful for us and people following this thread to note that international relations are not legal relations, which has already been discussed by is worth repeating.

There is no guarantees in any international agreement as there is no world court and world police system that enforces agreements.

The reason to make an international agreement is one of three options:

1. You yourself don't intend to abide by it, but it serves some deceptive purpose. For example, some Zelenskyites boast that Minsk I and Minsk II agreements Ukraine never intended to honour but it was a clever deception to buy time to build up their forces to crush the rebels. I'm not sure if this is true, but it is said. People who deny Ukraine had such intentions claim it was in fact Russia never intending to honor the agreement and just buying time to ready their invasion force. So, a good example of making an agreement with zero intention of honouring it in either scenario.

2. You intend to honour the agreement, you hope the other party honours the agreement but you have no power in the situation and you can't do much about the situation if the deal isn't honoured. For example, losing a war and surrendering is such a situation; maybe the victors honour whatever peace deal was agreed, or maybe not and just do as they please once they take over administration.

3. You intend to honour the agreement only if you believe the other party will as well. One reason to believe they will honour the agreement is you think they just have that high a character, but, failing such an esteem (such as with you enemy you've been fighting a war with), the alternative is simply that there is a system of interests in place that would compel the counter party to abide by the agreement.

What simply does not exist is some sort of external guarantee to international agreements.

As you mention, the best that can be done is a UN resolution passed by all members of the security council (i.e. US and Russia agreeing to whatever it is).

This has no force of law, but simply increases the diplomatic cost of reneging on the agreement.

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.

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

Where do you get this idea? By what judgement you made this idea that Russia gave a "guarantee"?

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. Russia wasn't willing to sacrifice it's best troops. And of course Putin was no where to be found in the TV theatre where the commander in Ukraine and Shoigu discussed the withdrawal (which is typical Putin: he never gives the bad news).

It's interesting how many seem to be desperately hoping that Putin has many aces on his sleeves, that the Russian army isn't marching on to a defeat. As if the situation isn't so bleak to the Russian army. Yes, likely the West can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by not supplying Ukraine and demanding a possibility for Putin to "save face".

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

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 United States pressured Ukraine to show willingness to negotiate a few weeks ago. — Tzeentch

Prior to the midterm elections. Now the situation doesn't look so bad for the Democrats though.

By what judgement you made this idea that Russia gave a "guarantee"? — ssu

By my own judgement. The way the Russians left Kherson is odd, so I sought a reasonable explanation.

The United States pressured Ukraine into showing willingness for negotiations. Russia left Kherson in a way that is not typical for two nations at war. Now Zelensky is talking about the end of the war.

I would not be surprised if the deal has already been struck.

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

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.

Prior to the midterm elections. Now the situation doesn't look so bad for the Democrats though. — neomac

Ukraine stands nothing to gain from prolonged conflict with Russia, regardless of who controls the United States. It's losing, and it is going to lose more.That might be an unpopular opinion, but Ukraine's current position is the best it's ever going to be, and it will only deteriorate from here, regardless of whether the United States profit from continued conflict.

Russia probably wants out of this conflict sooner rather than later aswell. It's not making any more attempts at conquering more territory.

A good recipe for peace, wouldn't you say?

By my own judgement. The way the Russians left Kherson is odd, so I sought a reasonable explanation. — Tzeentch

What is odd?

The reasonable explanation is that Russia cannot simply supply a force of tens of thousands of troops over the precarious few bridges (that Ukraine can hit) over the Dniepr on the western side of the river in Kherson. Russia lacks the logistical ability to move far away from the railway lines was well known even before the war started. They lack simply the logistics. Hence Ukraine has targeted supply dumps with the accurate HIMARS rockets and basically fought a similar conventional war that NATO planned to fight the Soviet war machine.



When you look at the rail lines in Ukraine, one immediately notices the only way is through Crimea by the now infamous bridge that was attacked.

The next possible Ukrainian offensive would be to circumvent the Dniepr altogether and launch an attack from the Donetsk region to the sea and cut the land bridge to Crimea and take Mariupol or Melitopol. In manpower Ukraine has the advantage, yet in artillery and arms Russia enjoys still the advantage. However that it articles it might have sustained losses of nearly 100 000 are breathtaking and show the urgent need to send the newly mobilized forces immediately (and prematurely) to the front). Of course such an attack would need huge combined arms maneuvering, which might be too much for the Ukrainians to do.

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

Everything written or documented is against this.

There's only few bridges over the Dniepr and they are quite in reach of HIMARS rockets. You are simply wrong assuming Russian didn't have huge difficulties. In WW2 or even as late as in the Vietnam War a bridge as a target was very tricky. It isn't now with modern precision guided weapons.

And Ukraine has also by Russian sources used these precision guided weapons to destroy bridges:

(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.

What is odd? — ssu

"The odd" is that you don't give up ground for free when at war. Period.

"The odd" is that you don't give up ground for free when at war. Period. — Tzeentch

You do if you think you can't hold it.

No, you don't give up territory for free, and especially not with a loud announcement. You make the enemy bleed for every inch, and you use that illusion that you are still defending the territory against your enemy to make them pay the maximum price.

This would have never been done under regular war-time circumstances, which is why I suspect things have changed, likely deals have been made.

OK, enough mockery :D At least they have humor

Nov 10, 2022

Nov 12, 2022

Nov 13, 2022

likely deals have been made. — Tzeentch

Unlikely that the war will stop soon. The Russians were simply unable to hold Kherson and afraid of losing many men for nothing in that battle, so they ran away, leaving a lot of material behind. Nothing unusual here, except the fear of massive casualties is growing anong the Russian leadership, which is something new I think, perhaps because of the loss of thousands of mobilised men in the past few days in the eastern front and the ensuing scandals in the rear.