At the moment there is much talk of "negotiations" and "ceasefires"involving Hezbollah in Lebanon and Russia in Ukraine and promoting "dialogue" with China over Taiwan and Turkiye over Syria.

Thanks for the comprehensive response. I think I was able to isolate the central bone of contention, so to speak, as per above.

One essential component in the diplomatic toolbox is that it is better to have jaw-jaw than war-war, as the ole adage goes. Take for an example the Minsk agreements. Once the agreement was made, in those early days, it suited both Russians and the other parties to go along with it. As the situation developed, I don't believe for a minute that Russians didn't know that they were being led up the primrose path. It suited them because they were still preparing for a possibility of an all out (proxy) war with NATO.

Israeli genociders are not diplomacy driven and are not as sophisticated as Russians are .. just crude force application. Nevertheless, they will use it to have a cessation of fighting because it suites them .. and then immediately break this agreement, again, because it suites them and claim whatever and keep the situation on simmer.

With sultan Erdogan the situation is much more complicated but in essence he has Ottoman Empire 2.0 ambitions and has always eyed Aleppo as Turkiye's rightful property. I could go on but hopefully you get the picture.

My main point being that relationships between power centres is regulated and oscillates between outright use of military force and diplomacy depending on the conflict.