modulus

Historically many if not most conflicts started with the breach of an agreement. Without getting bogged down in irrelevant detail, there are issue of self-determination of Crimea, which repeatedly in 3 referenda (2 if you wish to exclude the last one) pronounced in favour of either autonomy or being part of the CIS (effectively Russian Federation). Likewise, and setting aside the 2014 events for the moment, there also were agreements that, in principle, may have served as a valid status quo, such as Minsk II, and were not complied to by the parties.

So, sure, some form of trust-building will be necessary. But what's the alternative? Endless war?

Just about the way of expressing it, the idea is still on.

That NATO official has apologised about the form and lack of context, then restated that territorial concessions are likely:

But Jenssen did not walk back the idea that a land-for-Nato-membership deal could ultimately be on the table. If there were serious peace negotiations then the military situation at the time, including who controls what territory, “will necessarily have a decisive influence,” the chief of staff said.

But Ukraine is not a member. There is no reassurance required, or given, by NATO supplying non-members. In fact one could easily make the opposite claim: NATO depleting its own ammunition stores is doing the opposite of reassuring its members, by decreasing its own margins of safety.

As far as I can tell, Stian Jenssen apologised about the way the comment had been made and interpreted, but not about the substance. Specifically:

A day later, he gave an interview to the same newspaper, VG, that had reported on his original comments. “My statement about this was part of a larger discussion about possible future scenarios in Ukraine, and I shouldn’t have said it that way. It was a mistake,” he said. But Jenssen did not walk back the idea that a land-for-Nato-membership deal could ultimately be on the table. If there were serious peace negotiations then the military situation at the time, including who controls what territory, “will necessarily have a decisive influence,” the chief of staff said.

So clearly at least some people in NATO consider that a peace deal may entail territorial concessions. Which like it or not is a realistic position to take.

At least it doesn't sound like they will have much diplomatic cover to do it. Such an invasion would very simply be a violation of, shall we say it, the rules-based international order(tm).

Yep, it's good to see that sovereignty will be respected. These international orgs like OAS and AU can go either way, it depends on a lot of factors.

Certainly this smells worse and worse. It makes no sense to claim that:

1. The cable is false.
2. But leaking it breaches official secrets laws.
3. And its content is irrelevant anyway.

Full marks for a triply contradictory stance.

There's a surprising amount of that, not to mention... not sure whether to go into it but...

That said, there's also a few times when there's the same stuff on men by women, and, I think, on women by men. But since the Aiel wise ones and Aes Sedai alike are societies of women, well, there's a lot of that going on.

Why not? Copyright is a monopoly. Generally society benefits from having it as weak as possible.