Give everything for nothing: what is the "agreement between Ukraine and the US" and why it will not stop the war

The giant space for the game is built between the two extreme points of its probable result, that is, "future", if simply. In the range from the conditional (a) with the plot "we tried, but they are guilty" [and therefore we are not responsible for giving up obligations] to the conditional (Z) with the plot "here is why we have got into it" [and therefore we are not responsible for any expenses and consequences]. And all this is like insurance, you know? . .

These two extreme points are boxes for the internal audience, which they will hang in front of the face of every American user as it approaches the future in its variation A or Z, respectively. Everything else is a variable cards - big and small.

Yes, the same "cards", which, allegedly in passing (but we, however, noticed it!) Went in an oval office during a well -known discussion that suddenly illuminated the rest of the world, how deep the geopolitical rabbit hole, dug, as well as by all previous US administrations. And among such cards: the Middle East, the Arctic, the Nord Stream, the Panama Channel, Taiwan, and maybe, and more new or well forgotten old . . . In general, as the map will lie.

But the most loud "agreement" - this is the agreement! That is, not even in the sense of who is the subject or who is standing by the agreement, but in what it is directed. Next will be a little theory. In the doctrines that have developed in civilism, the agreement is defined as a way of achieving legal consequences by expression of will outside and within the limits allowed by existing law and order.

In simple words, agreements are actions aimed at establishing, changing and terminating rights and obligations (for example, civil legal relations). In any case, an agreement is a will . . . a willful act. Further. Agreements are unilateral and two- or multilateral (contracts). A unilateral agreement is an agreement that requires and sufficient (!) Expression of the will of one party. Such an agreement gives rise to rights and obligations, as a rule, only for the person who has committed it.

Classic examples of unilateral agreements can be a power of attorney and a will. A two- or multilateral agreement is an agreement that requires an expression of the agreement of two or more parties that is the contract. The will of the parties in such an agreement (ie in the contract) should be directed at a single legal result, that is, be counter and convergent.

For example, an agreement in the form of a contract of sale of property can take place if one party wants to buy a thing and the other-to sell it.

The convergent nature of the wills means their mutual consistency, due to the mutually satisfied interests of the parties, where: at the same time, contracts are also divided into unilateral and bilateral (mutual), but this division should be distinguished from the division of the same name !!! A unilateral contract is a design in which one party has only rights and the other only obligations.

An example of a unilateral contract - a loan agreement; Only the borrower is obliged here; The lender has the right to demand from the borrower a repayment of the borrowed amount, but no obligation on it lies. A bilateral contract is a design in which each side has both rights and obligations.

An example of a bilateral agreement-a contract of sale of property; The seller is obliged to transfer the thing and has the right to demand money; The buyer has the right to demand the thing and is obliged to transfer money. Thus, however, let us return to our "Agreement of the Century".

What is it? But now we will not approach this issue from the point of view of decoding the text signed by someone's trembling hand (I hope it does not reach), but from the position of a volitional act, which stands above any letters, numbers and other characters outlined on paper or even cut in stone. Because the vicinity of freedom turns all these symbols into what they are - into a dwarf, such as vulgar inscriptions on the fence.

Is the "agreement of the century" a bilateral agreement? No, it is not, because its content does not answer the question that Ukraine receives in the form of counter -satisfaction and that it has the right to demand instead of its duties. Let me remind you that the "will of Ukraine" is aimed at demanding "safety products". Otherwise, it all loses its meaning. And in the format of this agreement there are no these products, which has been repeatedly and openly stated.

By the way, the same situation - and with the question of the counter -satisfaction of Europe, which, by the logic of the initiators of the agreement, will have to do something there to restore Ukraine, but it is absolutely unclear why it is needed by Europe and that Europe receives instead (not at all, but relatively, that is, from the US side, and without being a party). Thus, this is not a bilateral contract.

Is the "agreement of the century" a unilateral treaty? No, it is not, because this must be actually agreed and not made under coercion or on extremely disadvantageous conditions due to difficult circumstances. "You will not sign the agreement - we will disconnect the intelligence and stop the supply of weapons. " And this is a fighting country for which the termination of military aid is a question of literally life and death! Everything is simple here. Thus, this is not a unilateral contract.

But then, perhaps, the "agreement of the century" is a unilateral agreement for which one side is enough? And again no, because for this she (that is, the will of this one side) should be addressed to what she has before the conclusion of the agreement. For example, to Alaska, whose resources would be allowed someone to do in the name of peace around the world . . . and that there was no war in Europe. That's when OK. But in our case, everything is completely different.

Thus, this is not a unilateral agreement. Even if and something looks like. Everything looks like at first glance, though it resembles a unilateral agreement, but in fact is a hybrid between a power of attorney and a will, only roughly turned inside out.

Imagine that the right to dispose of all your property goes on an irrevocable assignment (!) To your representative, who (that is, not you, but he!) Prescribes this assignment to yourself, giving yourself the possibility of comprehensive and unlimited control, up to the full sales of everything you have! Now imagine that in addition to such an "irrevocable power of attorney" there is also your testament, after which all your property is inherited by the same party that has received the right to dispose of it for your life for the above.

And the chip is that the will also do not you as a testator, but it does your future heir, determining yourself, without your will, that he inherits after your death . . . That is, everything that does not have time to master until you are alive. So, we have two in one bottle: "proxy" or "testimony" (as you like more) - a new word in world jurisprudence. And this is a hybrid miracle - that's our "agreement of the century".

Therefore, it does not matter which nomenclature of rare earth metals under this agreement will be determined or at what address in the states in the states Delaware or New York will be chosen by its jurisdiction. If this miracle is signed (to reality everyone in reality of the "Agree of the Age"), then there will be something to stuff anything: it will turn into a total and endless card-blanche . . . "Subject to the full neopor of the parties.