Discussion Why do politicians push for or agree to a ceasefire when they have no intention of adhering to it?

[Forever Sleep]

Is it because they genuinely want to work towards peace or, do you suppose it's to try to lure the other country into a false sense of security?

I wonder if there are statistics out there- over who is more likely to break a ceasefire? The country that is pushing for it the most or, the country that just went along with it.

I suppose they'll always defend breaking a ceasefire. This country broke it's promises and violated the deal or whatever.

I wonder if it ever truly ends though. Once there are major acts of violence between one country and another- there is always something to retaliate over. And, so it goes on.

I suppose it's all they can do though- at least try to work towards peace. I just wonder how genuine it is though. Do they truly go into these negotiations hoping they will never attack one another again or, is it more just tactics and political strategy?

 

[LastNite]

I doubt that they want peace. I like war not in the sense of it happening but like watching combat footage, history, etc. It always comes down to money and power. The more power you have over your opponent the more you profit.

Ceasefires happen when each country is suffering loses and when there is no clear end to that conflict (stalemate). Most countries will use a ceasefire to replan and reinforce their offensive forces. It's never actually used to maintain peace.

I don't want to mention countries, but I know a few who sabotaged their own ceasefire deal that they agreed to then lied to the press that the other side violated the ceasefire just to start the conflict once again. They do this when they are powerful enough to get out of the stalemate and no they don't wait for the enemy to heal.

If you and me fought, we both got injured but I sustained more injuries then I would obviously need more time to heal than you do. Your best bet would be to attack me again as soon as you heal up. Waiting would mean that we'll fight again just to end up in a similar situation with no winning side.

If you want an old (sort of) example of this happening look up the Syrian rebel advance against the Syrian dictatorship. There was a ceasefire for a long time because the battle never ended. The U.S previously backed and funded Syrian rebel groups against Assad who was an ally of Russia. As far as I know they stopped mainly due to the reason of ISIS intrusion into those rebel groups. How did this happen? Well many believe that assad who had ISIS prisoners, purposefully let out those ISIS prisoners to join up with those rebel groups. This forced the U.S to end funding, but Türkiye refused to end support to the rebels so the conflict became a stalemate. There was some attacks but nothing too severe.

During the start of the Ukrainian-Russian war, the rebels (a shit load of groups) had a meeting to merge into one singular group against assad. Assad was weakened heavily because Russia ended support. In under a week I think? Assad and the entire dictatorship fell. The Syrian civil war started around 2011 I think. They waited until the time is right and attacked.

There's also another huge thing that happened because of this but I don't want to yap on more. Politics nowadays is just a game, they don't see people as people. We're just pawns.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I doubt that they want peace. I like war not in the sense of it happening but like watching combat footage, history, etc. It always comes down to money and power. The more power you have over your opponent the more you profit.

Ceasefires happen when each country is suffering loses and when there is no clear end to that conflict (stalemate). Most countries will use a ceasefire to replan and reinforce their offensive forces. It's never actually used to maintain peace.

I don't want to mention countries, but I know a few who sabotaged their own ceasefire deal that they agreed to then lied to the press that the other side violated the ceasefire just to start the conflict once again. They do this when they are powerful enough to get out of the stalemate and no they don't wait for the enemy to heal.

If you and me fought, we both got injured but I sustained more injuries then I would obviously need more time to heal than you do. Your best bet would be to attack me again as soon as you heal up. Waiting would mean that we'll fight again just to end up in a similar situation with no winning side.

If you want an old (sort of) example of this happening look up the Syrian rebel advance against the Syrian dictatorship. There was a ceasefire for a long time because the battle never ended. The U.S previously backed and funded Syrian rebel groups against Assad who was an ally of Russia. As far as I know they stopped mainly due to the reason of ISIS intrusion into those rebel groups. How did this happen? Well many believe that assad who had ISIS prisoners, purposefully let out those ISIS prisoners to join up with those rebel groups. This forced the U.S to end funding, but Türkiye refused to end support to the rebels so the conflict became a stalemate. There was some attacks but nothing too severe.

During the start of the Ukrainian-Russian war, the rebels (a shit load of groups) had a meeting to merge into one singular group against assad. Assad was weakened heavily because Russia ended support. In under a week I think? Assad and the entire dictatorship fell. The Syrian civil war started around 2011 I think. They waited until the time is right and attacked.

There's also another huge thing that happened because of this but I don't want to yap on more. Politics nowadays is just a game, they don't see people as people. We're just pawns.

Thank you for responding. That does make (a disturbing) amount of sense.