Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-23 and Invasion

[Admiral Yi]

I think the folks saying "we're not selling out Ukrainians!!!!" should ask Ukrainians what they think of their super smart proposals.

Let us know how that goes.

I think the person making this proposal needs to think about what selling out the Ukrainians means.

[Berkut]

Analogies, by their very nature, are not very helpful.

WWII is a terribly strained analogy because it isn't about just a border or influence but an attempt by Germany to exterminate and enslave populations in neighboring territories.

That is exactly what Russia is trying to do to Ukraine, actually.

I mean there is no reason to think Russia doesn't have an ethnic cleansing/colonization plan for whatever parts of Ukraine it conquers. That is certainly its historical MO and it works.

They haven't been shy about this. 

It isn't hard to figure out what they mean by "de-nazification". They have stated it outright.

Putin thought this was would end with the Ukraine no longer being a sovereign nation - whatever rump remained of it after he tore off the parts he annexed into Russia would be a puppet state.

[Admiral Yi]

Ok so what are we talking about then? What we would do if we were Ukraine?

That's what I've been doing.

[Zoupa]

I think anything other than 1991 borders is a defeat for "the international rules-based order", the West and the UN.

I honestly don't understand how anyone can propose any territorial concessions and  not instantly be reminded of 1938 Munich.

[Berkut]

Given that the West has refused to recognize the Crimea as Russian for almost a decade now, I don't see why Russia invading another part of the Ukraine could possibly make us agree to recognize it now, and still have a shred of credibility left.

[Jacob]

I think the folks saying "we're not selling out Ukrainians!!!!" should ask Ukrainians what they think of their super smart proposals.

Let us know how that goes.

Yep. That's basically my entire point.

I think the person making this proposal needs to think about what selling out the Ukrainians means.

Was thinking about this over lunch, and I think may have identified the fundamental difference in assumptions behind this exchange.

One side - Josq and Yi - assume that there is a constituency in parts of Ukraine for joining Russia, and that if it is the majority then that's fair enough. However there might not be, in which case the local populations will vote to remain in Ukraine - no harm done and on the positive side a solid refutation of Russia's claim to be "liberators".

The other side (or at least this is where I'm at) has not seen anything that indicates any support for separation - the "breakaway republics" were FSB operations fomented, funded, and staffed by Russian agents. As such, there is no reason to organize a referendum at least until such a time as there is a genuine expression of a desire to leave. This, however, is something that can only happen in peace time not in response to an invasion. Secondly, we know that Russia already enjoys organizing sham referendums, so it's a given that if the proposed separation referendum doesn't go Russia's way, they will simply reject the results and substitute their own (which know have more legitimacy since everyone's agreed that Ukraine can be broken up by referendums).

[Berkut]

Jake, I don't disagree with anything you just said. However....

If you could wave a magic wand and guarantee that any referendum would be perfect fair, and include the votes of everyone who was killed or driven away, and discount the votes of Bad People, I *still* would be against it. Hell, even if you could promise it would fail for obvious reasons.

This is like having a vote on whether or not to enslave a bunch of people. It doesn't matter if everyone votes against enslaving them - simply having the vote accepts that the people involved don't have their own freedom, that it is contingent on the rest of us voting on it. Even if we all vote unanimously against putting some group into chains, the vote itself says that we have the right to do so if we want.

Putin and Russia do not believe that Ukraine is a sovereign nation. Agreeing with them that the status of any part of Ukraine is subject to a "referendum" means that they are correct, and in fact Ukraine is not a sovereign nation, that it's sovereignty is subject to outside pressure, which of course is not sovereignty at all.

If Ukraine wants to have a referendum and consider whether or not some part of it might be better served in some other arrangement, then they can do so any time they like. Doing so as part of a peace negotiation with someone they are at war with has no legitimacy, under any circumstances.

[Admiral Yi]

Was thinking about this over lunch, and I think may have identified the fundamental difference in assumptions behind this exchange.

One side - Josq and Yi - assume that there is a constituency in parts of Ukraine for joining Russia, and that if it is the majority then that's fair enough. However there might not be, in which case the local populations will vote to remain in Ukraine - no harm done and on the positive side a solid refutation of Russia's claim to be "liberators".

The other side (or at least this is where I'm at) has not seen anything that indicates any support for separation - the "breakaway republics" were FSB operations fomented, funded, and staffed by Russian agents. As such, there is no reason to organize a referendum at least until such a time as there is a genuine expression of a desire to leave. This, however, is something that can only happen in peace time not in response to an invasion. Secondly, we know that Russia already enjoys organizing sham referendums, so it's a given that if the proposed separation referendum doesn't go Russia's way, they will simply reject the results and substitute their own (which know have more legitimacy since everyone's agreed that Ukraine can be broken up by referendums).

Is this on the issue of "selling out Ukraine?"  This whole time I thought selling out Ukraine meant imposing a peace that they were not in favor of.  I have made it abundantly clear (at least I thought) that I am not in favor of imposing a peace on Ukraine, and therefore all those crying about selling out Ukraine were raging against a comfortable strawman.

Now let's say Zelensky emails me and asks me for suggestions on reasonable peace terms, and I email back with what I've said here.  He thinks it's an awesome idea and the Ukrainian people think it's awesome.  Then let's say the Russians sign off and then cheat like you laid out, regardless of the continuation of sanctions as I mentioned.  Would that be selling out Ukraine?  If so, please explain to me how that's so.  That would require a different understanding of selling out than the one I'm using.

[crazy canuck]

10-20 years from now Russia will happily by supplying oil again because people don't learn and money makes the world go round.

Yes they will supply oil again but European countries will never allow that level of dependence to arise again.  They will diversify sources of supply.  People do learn, if only a little bit at a time.

If countries are still importing oil from Russia 20 years from now, we are all pretty much screwed - but for other reasons.

[Jacob]

Is this on the issue of "selling out Ukraine?"  This whole time I thought selling out Ukraine meant imposing a peace that they were not in favor of.  I have made it abundantly clear (at least I thought) that I am not in favor of imposing a peace on Ukraine, and therefore all those crying about selling out Ukraine were raging against a comfortable strawman.

Then we're good

Now let's say Zelensky emails me and asks me for suggestions on reasonable peace terms, and I email back with what I've said here.  He thinks it's an awesome idea and the Ukrainian people think it's awesome.  Then let's say the Russians sign off and then cheat like you laid out, regardless of the continuation of sanctions as I mentioned.  Would that be selling out Ukraine?  If so, please explain to me how that's so.  That would require a different understanding of selling out than the one I'm using.

That would make you the coolest guy on languish by far

But no, if Ukraine decides to implement the Yi Plan then it is not selling Ukraine out. Pressuring them to do it is what is wrong, which you have made abundantly clear that you're not - so we're good.

To tie it back to some other posts though, having those referenda is accepting a Russian framing and conceding something to Russia that ideally should not be conceded. But if Ukraine is willing to concede that as part of negotiations, that's their prerogative. At the moment, however, that does not seem to be their line.

[Grey Fox]

France doesn't get to tell England & Canada and ask for a UN supervised referendum that Quebec should be independent because we happen to still be speaking french.

It would not be acceptable.

[Josquius]

France doesn't get to tell England & Canada and ask for a UN supervised referendum that Quebec should be independent because we happen to still be speaking french.

It would not be acceptable.

You realise I'm a random guy on the internet speaking in theoreticals about stuff I have zero power over right? I'm not speaking on behalf of Britain.

I think the folks saying "we're not selling out Ukrainians!!!!" should ask Ukrainians what they think of their super smart proposals.

Let us know how that goes.

Yep. That's basically my entire point.

I think the person making this proposal needs to think about what selling out the Ukrainians means.

Was thinking about this over lunch, and I think may have identified the fundamental difference in assumptions behind this exchange.

One side - Josq and Yi - assume that there is a constituency in parts of Ukraine for joining Russia, and that if it is the majority then that's fair enough. However there might not be, in which case the local populations will vote to remain in Ukraine - no harm done and on the positive side a solid refutation of Russia's claim to be "liberators".

The other side (or at least this is where I'm at) has not seen anything that indicates any support for separation - the "breakaway republics" were FSB operations fomented, funded, and staffed by Russian agents. As such, there is no reason to organize a referendum at least until such a time as there is a genuine expression of a desire to leave. This, however, is something that can only happen in peace time not in response to an invasion. Secondly, we know that Russia already enjoys organizing sham referendums, so it's a given that if the proposed separation referendum doesn't go Russia's way, they will simply reject the results and substitute their own (which know have more legitimacy since everyone's agreed that Ukraine can be broken up by referendums).

Thats basically my point yes.
I don't think you really believe there's literally nobody in the occupied areas who wants to be part of Russia. When looking at millions of people you'll find a handful of nutters who want anything.
I believe, outside of Crimea for certain, that the actual numbers who would vote to be part of Russia are negligible.

However I would say to your concerns- 

1: I agree there would be no serious call for a referendum in peace time. However, the costs and effort in running a pointless referendum as wasteful as they might be in normal times, are infinitely more preferable to war.

2: The entire point of this is that it would be done to restore peace. It wouldn't be taking place in wartime. Russian withdrawal and peacekeepers moving in is a core part of the proposal.

3: Russia would whinge and reject it when it inevitably doesn't go its way. However this would
A: Look bad for them when its clear this referendum has been organised fairly. Few countries would believe them.
B: At worst case restart the war with Russian troops firing on UN peace keepers and storming across the international border again. What happens next is debatable but certainly Ukraine would be in a far more advantageous position than it is likely to be for the foreseeable future given continued war.

4: Ukraine can be broken up by referendum. America can be broken up by referendum. Russia can be broken up by referendum. Britain can be broken up by referendum. And so on. This is the way things should be (tm).

5: Russia wouldn't accept this proposal in the first place. Its a bluff. Albeit one that would be great to see called. The proposal being on the table would look good for Ukraine and rejecting it would look bad for Russia.

[Tamas]

If Hungary attacks and terror-bombs Romania do they get to have a referendum held in Transylvania? Asking for a friend.

[Josquius]

If Hungary attacks and terror-bombs Romania do they get to have a referendum held in Transylvania? Asking for a friend.

Transylvania gets to have a referendum on joining Hungary by default. Hungary attacking for this is pointless.
And tell your friend no, Romania can't launch a sneaky false flag operation to make it look like Hungary attacked just to wipe out the Transylvanians rights. Thats not how it works.

[Tamas]

If Hungary attacks and terror-bombs Romania do they get to have a referendum held in Transylvania? Asking for a friend.

Transylvania gets to have a referendum on joining Hungary by default. Hungary attacking for this is pointless.
And tell your friend no, Romania can't launch a sneaky false flag operation to make it look like Hungary attacked just to wipe out the Transylvanians rights. Thats not how it works.

First of all, no Transylvania doesn't get that by default, the still overwhelmingly Hungarian region of it (Szekelyfold) has had a significant autonomy movement for decades with no willingness from Bucharest to listen.

BUT thanks to your line of thinking if Hungary waged an aggressive and destructive war on Romania, the international community would require such a referendum.

And I'll ignore your Romanian false flag thing because it read odds in comparison to the Ukraine situation and I know you didn't mean it like that.