Prez Z has suggested that any negotiated settlement would have to be agreed by a referendum vote. If that happens it will be interesting to see if the people in the Donetsk oblasts get to vote, and on exactly what parts of the proposed settlement. He must for sure have the support of a vast majority of the big-city populations so far, to 'fight forever' - or at least for as long as the Western aid supports them in the war, and supports their economy.
My own definition of 'oligarchs' is a fairly loose one and includes even some in the USA. Basically, those with the power to influence major events, for profit reasons.
You wrote that the 'nuclear-armed states are really in just as much breach' as iran, yet your cite is to language requiring them to 'pursue negotiations in good faith'. Outside of very specific business/insurance litigation situations, 'good faith' requirements are always illusory and aspirational.As an aside . . . . . when signing the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty, the nuclear-armed states agreed to give up their nuclear arms at "an early date". It is not much discussed, but the nuclear-armed states are really in just as much of breach of the non-proliferation treaty as Iran.
Like most legal texts, there is ofc wiggle room in the details, which the nuclear-armed states will cite as excuse/justification, but broadly it is quite clear that there is no intent at all to accomplish "general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control".
"Article VI) Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.
interesting, thanks.You wrote that the 'nuclear-armed states are really in just as much breach' as iran, yet your cite is to language requiring them to 'pursue negotiations in good faith'. Outside of very specific business/insurance litigation situations, 'good faith' requirements are always illusory and aspirational.
I would agree with that statement.
I think that is a very inaccurate and detracting definition of an oligarch.
Yes, like DW suggested my definition is 'out of context' but at the heart of both the Russian Oligarchs and what I consider to be USA 'oligarchs' is the ability of powerful forces to influence, in both cases, the President. In the USA it is generally a case of bribery too although here it is largely 'legalized' bribery, through our ridiculous campaign financing rules. For a better explanation, the NPR podcast I posted above is a good one.
More to the subject at hand, there seem to be lots of people benefitting financially from the war in Ukraine, although I am not accusing Biden of being one of them.
I've read this guys stuff for a whole, I haven't agreed with all of what he has written by some way, but this is interesting.
Short version is that when you allow for lack of palletisation & automation in RU logistics, damage to roads etc, GMLRS now means that UKR can now target fuel and ammo depots so far behind the front line that the Russian trucks cannot do even a single return trip a day from a depot to front line.
And rail logistics are easier to target. So as GMLRS makes itself felt, RU logistics (and in particular support for artillery) are effectively unsustainable