Thank you for your comments, Veronica. In particular, you made me think about how sensible is it, really, to think that the different parties need to wait on formal visits to discuss things? Excellent observation. My response, speculative, is that doubtless there is a great deal of informal conversation that goes on - although, parties have to be very careful not to break their own rules of protocol since, after all, they represent not just themselves but their constituencies, whatever or whoever those might be. But still, there must surely be backdoor means for the informal exchange of ideas. The formal visits then become opportunities for the formalization of the resulting positions that the respective parties arrive at, and during which official statements are made to the world that are intended to represent the latest and most formal position that has been adopted by any given government. Hopefully that makes sense.
Thank you as always for a very cogent and useful rundown. The hypocrisy of the west, over the "aid" and the weapons to Ukraine, is breathtaking. I'm glad more brigades are finding ways to surrender rather than be slaughtered.
The western "leaders'" wholesale mendacity over Gaza, and their abject acquiescence to Israel, can only have greed and/or fear as the underlying glue.
And I certainly agree that China is unlikely to find anything the US says truthful or impressive. I find myself wondering, though, if China does have useful ideas for ending the SMO to their and Russia's mutual benefit, why would they wait for Putin's visit? I find it hard to believe that they aren't communicating between visits. But I suppose this is theatre, and in order to have a publishable result of the visit, it must needs be prepared beforehand.
Thank you for your comments, Veronica. In particular, you made me think about how sensible is it, really, to think that the different parties need to wait on formal visits to discuss things? Excellent observation. My response, speculative, is that doubtless there is a great deal of informal conversation that goes on - although, parties have to be very careful not to break their own rules of protocol since, after all, they represent not just themselves but their constituencies, whatever or whoever those might be. But still, there must surely be backdoor means for the informal exchange of ideas. The formal visits then become opportunities for the formalization of the resulting positions that the respective parties arrive at, and during which official statements are made to the world that are intended to represent the latest and most formal position that has been adopted by any given government. Hopefully that makes sense.
Thank you as always for a very cogent and useful rundown. The hypocrisy of the west, over the "aid" and the weapons to Ukraine, is breathtaking. I'm glad more brigades are finding ways to surrender rather than be slaughtered.
The western "leaders'" wholesale mendacity over Gaza, and their abject acquiescence to Israel, can only have greed and/or fear as the underlying glue.
And I certainly agree that China is unlikely to find anything the US says truthful or impressive. I find myself wondering, though, if China does have useful ideas for ending the SMO to their and Russia's mutual benefit, why would they wait for Putin's visit? I find it hard to believe that they aren't communicating between visits. But I suppose this is theatre, and in order to have a publishable result of the visit, it must needs be prepared beforehand.