Treaties and negotiations of Russian diplomacy with the collective West on peace and security guarantees in a context of the Ukrainian crisis Russia and BRICS: New Stage of Strategic Cooperation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In December 2021, two months prior its special military operation in Ukraine, Moscow published drafts of a treaty between Russia and the United States on security guarantees and an agreement on measures to ensure the security of Russia and NATO member states. Russian diplomacy expected that the Americans and the Europeans would enter into serious negotiations on an issue that is critical for maintaining international peace and stability. Unfortunately, that did not happen. In January 2022 Russian Foreign Minister sent a message on the indivisibility of security to his colleagues in the United States, Canada and several European countries. An unconstructive reaction from the American continent and formal replies from Brussels were received in response. In March 2022, a month after the start of active hostilities, the Russian and Ukrainian delegations initialed in Istanbul a draft agreement on permanent neutrality and security guarantees for Ukraine which envisaged confirming them at the international legal level. In April same year Kiev refused to resume negotiations and continued armed resistance. In June 2024, speaking at an extended board of the Foreign Ministry, Russian leader formulated the principles for revival peace talks the main ones being Ukraine’s refusal to join NATO and the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from the newly joined Russian territories. But this proposal was also ignored by Kiev. Three years after Moscow’s fi rst official attempt to reach an agreement with the “collective West” on peace and security guarantees we would like to analyze the evolution of Russian geopolitical approaches and negotiating power positions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".