Question:
You said that Russia has nothing to counter Trump in the negotiations except for military successes on the Ukrainian front. What about the processes related to Iran, China, North Korea, etc.? Do you think – that can’t be part of the deal?
In the trade process, the parties can offer different options. But they will most likely consider those that they can actually fulfill, as well as monitor the fulfillment during the term of the agreement. The most reliable clauses are those that cannot or are very difficult to cancel.
For example, once NATO troops have entered Ukraine as peacekeepers, it is almost impossible to withdraw them in the future at Russia’s unilateral request. To do so, it would be necessary to reassemble and deploy a strike force on the border, to start diplomatic pressure, and finally to issue ultimatums. If armaments and ammunition depots for a large army are created in Ukraine, cadre divisions, for example, it will also be impossible to remove them from there.
Such “concessions” on the Russian side as breaking military and political relations with Iran and North Korea can easily be deployed at any moment. Likewise, the lifting of many sanctions has a procedure such that they can easily be brought back once the dividing line is established. As for relations with China, the Kremlin will never risk the support of its only serious ally. China’s logistical assistance is what almost all industrial development hinges on. A departure from cooperation with Beijing even in specific limited sectors of foreign policy (for example, a ban on the transfer of military technology) would inevitably affect the entire set of relations.
There is another circumstance. It is difficult to control the fulfillment of the regime of concessions if it does not depend on you. This is especially true of the DPRK’s zigzagging political course. But the Islamic Republic’s regime can also change its priorities. Today it is an ally and tomorrow a silent adversary – it has happened many times before.
Most likely, the sides will offer each other elements of their own policies (on the front or in the economy), which they firmly control and are ready to vouch for compliance with the agreements.
So basically, Russia’s only real bargaining chip is waving around its military gains in Ukraine while pretending it can just flip-flop on alliances with Iran and North Korea like it’s changing socks. And the whole China thing? Untouchable, because apparently survival depends on playing nice with them no matter what. Meanwhile, NATO troops in Ukraine become permanent guests nobody asked for, and everyone acts like that’s just part of the plan. Sounds more like a political soap opera where trust is a joke and deals are made on shaky sand. But hey, why expect anything less in international politics? 🤡
This perspective really sheds light on the complexity of international negotiations and the importance of tangible, enforceable commitments. It’s fascinating how alliances and geopolitical realities shape what can realistically be offered in a deal, and the idea that some concessions are almost irreversible while others remain flexible is something I hadn’t fully appreciated before. It makes you realize how delicate and intricate diplomacy really is, especially when multiple powerful players with shifting interests are involved 🌍
This article really sheds light on the complexity of international negotiations and how fragile these deals can be when multiple countries with shifting alliances are involved 🌍🤔 It’s fascinating to think about how much depends on trust and control over partners like Iran or North Korea, who might not stick to the plan. Also, the point about China being a non-negotiable ally for Russia makes a lot of sense given the massive economic and military ties 🤝💼 It feels like the chess game here isn’t just about Ukraine, but a much bigger picture of global power dynamics and fragile agreements. Makes me realize how delicate peace processes really are!
This reflection really highlights the complexity of geopolitical negotiations and how fragile and interconnected international relations are. It seems that any agreement is not just about the immediate terms on the table but also about the layers of trust, control, and unpredictability behind the scenes. The idea that some concessions can be easily reversed or remain outside direct control reminds us how fluid alliances and enmities can be, like shifting sands under our feet. In that sense, perhaps true stability is less about rigid agreements and more about understanding the deeper currents that shape states’ choices over time 🌿