Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-23 and Invasion

[Malthus]

Russia is signaling gradual escalation for every Ukrainian battlefield success.  Now's a good time for a deal.

I would offer UN supervised referenda in the Donbas and Crimea on Russian annexation in exchange for NATO membership.  Free movement of people for some fixed time period that want to immigrate either direction.

Say the offer is valid for two weeks, as the battlefield is still fluid and terms might change.

GOP has said they will cut Ukraine aid if they win the House, so that clock is ticking.

There is one enormous problem with a deal, above and beyond any other considerations: the Russian word is not good. They cannot be made to keep terms, except by force. If that force is available, why not simply impose terms such that Russia gets nothing post-2014? If that force is not available, any agreement reached will be meaningless.

[Admiral Yi]

My question is why do you offer a referendum to those regions specifically and not others.

Claims about little green men and mercenaries notwithstanding, the Donbas provided prima facie evidence that they prefer not to be part of this Ukraine, with this government.  Because Crimea was awarded to Ukraine by Kruschev for apparently no reason.

[Admiral Yi]

There is one enormous problem with a deal, above and beyond any other considerations: the Russian word is not good. They cannot be made to keep terms, except by force. If that force is available, why not simply impose terms such that Russia gets nothing post-2014? If that force is not available, any agreement reached will be meaningless.

The force available to resist future encroachments increases massively once they have joined NATO.

[Zoupa]

My question is why do you offer a referendum to those regions specifically and not others.

Claims about little green men and mercenaries notwithstanding, the Donbas provided prima facie evidence that they prefer not to be part of this Ukraine, with this government.  Because Crimea was awarded to Ukraine by Kruschev for apparently no reason.

Yikes. I suggest you read up some more. Your deductions are seriously lacking, to say nothing of the consequences, internationally, of rewarding the aggressor. I don't think we want a return to the 19th century.

[Admiral Yi]

Yikes. I suggest you read up some more. Your deductions are seriously lacking, to say nothing of the consequences, internationally, of rewarding the aggressor. I don't think we want a return to the 19th century.

If Ukrainians are willing to fight and die to uphold this international norm, I will continue to support them in the only way I can, which is to vote for the party that promises to continue aid.

[Zoupa]

That's good, and I wasn't doubting that.

Just pointing out that your proposal was a terrible idea that would lead to many more tragedies, injustices and deaths. Kinda like Munich, 1938.

[grumbler]

I think that referenda would be appropriate
1. once the Russians have completely withdrawn from all of Ukraine (including Crimea, which is Ukrainian soil by even Russia's admission),
2. Russia has paid reparations amounting to the total damage the war has caused
3. after everyone who desires it can return to their pre-2014 homes and everyone who has moved to Ukraine from Russia has left,
4.  after Russia turns over Putin and anyone else who engaged in the conspiracy to wage aggressive war or the conspiracy to commit or allow war crimes, and
5. as part of allowing the option to leave Russia, adjudicated by internationally-administered referenda, in every Russian city, province, town, district, oblast, etc.  If we are doing referenda involving joining Russia, we should be holding referenda on leaving Russia, too. 

[Berkut]

My question is why do you offer a referendum to those regions specifically and not others.

Claims about little green men and mercenaries notwithstanding, the Donbas provided prima facie evidence that they prefer not to be part of this Ukraine, with this government.  Because Crimea was awarded to Ukraine by Kruschev for apparently no reason.

Crimea was part of the Ukraine when the USSR broke up, and they all sat down and agreed on the borders.

What does Kruschev have to do with anything?

[Berkut]

I think that referenda would be appropriate
1. once the Russians have completely withdrawn from all of Ukraine (including Crimea, which is Ukrainian soil by even Russia's admission),
2. Russia has paid reparations amounting to the total damage the war has caused
3. after everyone who desires it can return to their pre-2014 homes and everyone who has moved to Ukraine from Russia has left,
4.  after Russia turns over Putin and anyone else who engaged in the conspiracy to wage aggressive war or the conspiracy to commit or allow war crimes, and
5. as part of allowing the option to leave Russia, adjudicated by internationally-administered referenda, in every Russian city, province, town, district, oblast, etc.  If we are doing referenda involving joining Russia, we should be holding referenda on leaving Russia, too. 

I think if all those points were met....I still would no support a "referendum".

But I see your point here.

Ukraine is a sovereign nation. There is no reason, none, zero, zilch for "holding referendums" within sovereign nations to ask people if they want to separate and join some other nation, unless the sovereign nation itself decides to do so.

I mean, that is what the word "sovereign" means.

[Admiral Yi]

What does Kruschev have to do with anything?

I could swear I just said.

[Berkut]

What does Kruschev have to do with anything?

I could swear I just said.

Except you didn't. You just said some historical bit - how is that bit relevant, or more relevant, to any number of later historical bits?

The Crimea was part of Russia, then Russia stopped being a thing, and the USSR said "Hey Ukraine, you take Crimea" and then the USSR went away, and part of the going away involved everyone involved getting together and agreeing on what the borders would be, and that agreement had Crimea with Ukraine.

Why is Kruschev relevant to its status today? Why is it MORE relevant to the legally binding treaties Russia agreed to that recognized Crimea as part of Ukraine?

If we are going to troll around in history, should we consider that the only reason the people who lived in Crimea for like....forever, are no longer there to tell the Russians to fuck off is that the Russians, and then the Soviets, genocided them? Is that less relevant then Kruschev's "error"?

Crimea was part of Ukraine. Ukraine thought so. Russia thought so. The entire world thought so. Actually, let me correct that - Crimea IS part of Ukraine.

Why are we accepting Putin's (new - because Putin agreed it was part of Ukraine as well until he didn't) story that Crimea was somehow not part of Ukraine?

[Tonitrus]

Well shoot...lets also have UN-supervised referendums in northern/eastern Iraq, Israel/Palestine, Kashmir, Catalonia, Taiwan, Kosovo, Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Belgium, northern Italy, Texas, Alberta, Quebec, those tribal parts of Pakistan, and most of Africa.

Did I leave any place out?

I don't get your point.

You are suggesting that a UN-supervised referendum will bring peace to a conflict involving disputed territory.  So let us do that everywhere.  And the losers/"no" voters can just accept that or leave.  Eventually, after enough referendums, all of these loser populations will filter and coalesce onto a common territory in which they can live together either in peace, or in apathy.

[Barrister]

Problem is Crimea historically belonged to neither Ukraine nor Russia.  It belongs to the Tatars, the Ottomans, the Genoans, the Byzantines...

[Tamas]

If I recall correctly, there has been 5 agreements so far between Russia and Ukraine considering Ukraine's territorial integrity. It is pointless.

[Admiral Yi]

You are suggesting that a UN-supervised referendum will bring peace to a conflict involving disputed territory.  So let us do that everywhere.  And the losers/"no" voters can just accept that or leave.  Eventually, after enough referendums, all of these loser populations will filter and coalesce onto a common territory in which they can live together either in peace, or in apathy.

Sounds pretty good to me.