Imagine you're a negotiator between the Ukraine and Russia... how would you solve this problem?

[Theov]

I've been thinking about this the last few days.
Imagine you're a (neutral) negotiator between the Ukraine and Russia... how would you solve this problem/war?

Russia says it wants to re-establish Russia a world power, just like it was in the times of the USSR. To be honest, I think he's mostly after the land, resources and food that the Ukraine provides.
He also says he doesn't want the EU and the NATO at Russia's doorstep.

Ukraine - well, they just want the war to be over and the Russians to leave. They also want to Westernize, and minimize the influence Russia.

I think the best way is when the EU and the US threaten Putin with a massive war he can't possibly win and in return give Russia some favorable Trade Agreements that Putin can wave around saying he bargained for a great price on food, oil, gas etc.

 

[Kyriakos]

Eu doesn't have a common army (another of the many reasons it wouldn't go to war against Russia).
US would be nuked in such a case, so won't either.
Imo it'd be nice if Ukraine/Russia could agree on Russia leaving everything else and having de jure recognized Crimea. Do I think it will happen? No.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I would contact a passing Vogon ship and ask if they'd like a used Putin. I'd also file an objection to the hyperspace bypass so Earth wouldn't be destroyed.

No, I don't have a better idea that doesn't involve something I myself once objected to discussing here, so I won't mention it.

 

[Remorseless1]

If the US gets nuked, so does Russia, and all the European countries stuck in the middle. Plus it would possibly give clearance to other nuclear powers to fire off their nukes -- China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, and Israel. It's why saber rattling with WMDs is counterproductive to an extreme degree.

To answer the OP's question:

If I was the negotiator, I would turn to the representative for Ukraine and ask what they want. Period.

This isn't some petty spat over some province between 18th Century dukes. Thinking it's okay for Russia to use military force against former Soviet republics that VOLUNTARILY left the union/commonwealth and using the same reasons to threaten former Warsaw Pact "allies" is the definition of fascism.

 

[amadeus]

It is hard to act as a neutral party because the neutral position ultimately in my mind is “Russia gets out.” The 1991 borders are recognized by almost every UN member state minus, I think, Nicaragua and North Korea.

 

[Zardnaar]

Basically Ruussia trades ladies for sanctions relief while they still hold it.


BUT if things go wrong for Ukraine they might have to cede Crimea for peace. Russia might have to pony up cash and "buy" the land off Ukraine (if they want it recognized).

Otherwise cease fire and argue about where to draw the border, frozen conflict etc. Sanctions contine Russia becomes North Korea.

Assuming Ukraine doesn't collapse or Russia gets routed then one of them "wins".

Long term they've probably both lost.

 

[red_elk]

Start negotiations with neutral countries as mediators (e.g. India, Brazil, Turkey).
Things to discuss:
- Cease fire and exchange of prisoners.
- Creation of demilitarized zone and its location.
- Possibility for Russia to cede back some territories it currently controls
- Ukraine's non-alignment status in exchange for security guarantees from NATO members.
- Possibility to organize referendums in disputed territories, with international observers and voting rights for residents who lived there at the beginning of 2014.
- Status of Russian and Ukrainian languages in Donbass and Crimea

 

[Akka]

Imagine you're a (neutral) negotiator between the Ukraine and Russia... how would you solve this problem/war?

Imagine you're a "neutral" negociator between a woman and the guy who is trying to rape her.
Now the only sane thing to do is to be against the rapist and not give him anything in exchange for not raping the woman, but then the rapist will cast it as "not being neutral".

 

[Theov]

Imagine you're a "neutral" negociator between a woman and the guy who is trying to rape her.
Now the only sane thing to do is to be against the rapist and not give him anything in exchange for not raping the woman, but then the rapist will cast it as "not being neutral".

Thank you for your opinion.
I'm asking how you - as a negotiator - would handle the situation.

Eu doesn't have a common army (another of the many reasons it wouldn't go to war against Russia).
US would be nuked in such a case, so won't either.
Imo it'd be nice if Ukraine/Russia could agree on Russia leaving everything else and having de jure recognized Crimea. Do I think it will happen? No.

yeah the EU wouldn't want to burn their fingers going to war against Russia. So, perhaps a threat of war is off the table?
I'm not sure if 'US getting nuked' would be a possible outcome given that the US has nukes themselves.
Crimea is an interesting negotiation point.
Thanks for your feedback.

If the US gets nuked, so does Russia, and all the European countries stuck in the middle. Plus it would possibly give clearance to other nuclear powers to fire off their nukes -- China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, and Israel. It's why saber rattling with WMDs is counterproductive to an extreme degree.

To answer the OP's question:

If I was the negotiator, I would turn to the representative for Ukraine and ask what they want. Period.

This isn't some petty spat over some province between 18th Century dukes. Thinking it's okay for Russia to use military force against former Soviet republics that VOLUNTARILY left the union/commonwealth and using the same reasons to threaten former Warsaw Pact "allies" is the definition of fascism.

When you know what the Ukraine wants, what would you do with that information?

It is hard to act as a neutral party because the neutral position ultimately in my mind is “Russia gets out.” The 1991 borders are recognized by almost every UN member state minus, I think, Nicaragua and North Korea.

"russia gets out" would be the result.
The question is how you would achieve this as a negotiator.

Basically Ruussia trades ladies for sanctions relief while they still hold it.


BUT if things go wrong for Ukraine they might have to cede Crimea for peace. Russia might have to pony up cash and "buy" the land off Ukraine (if they want it recognized).

Otherwise cease fire and argue about where to draw the border, frozen conflict etc. Sanctions contine Russia becomes North Korea.

Assuming Ukraine doesn't collapse or Russia gets routed then one of them "wins".

Long term they've probably both lost.

There are no winners in war. Only losers and dead people.
As said before by Kyriakos, Crimea is and interesting topic - perhaps for a load of cash. I'm not sure how that would work.
A cease fire would be a good start of the negotiations. However, you often see that wars continue during peace talks.
Sanctions (more) would be a powerful tool.
Thanks for the response.

 

[Zardnaar]

Realistically Russia get out coukd only be down if Ukraine was throwing them out tge gard way.

If you're gona lose the land anyway may as well cut a deal anyway.

Assuming rational actors.

 

[Senethro]

I'd probably start by finding out what the part of Russia with the ability to end the war is even attempting to achieve.

 

[amadeus]

"russia gets out" would be the result.
The question is how you would achieve this as a negotiator.

I don’t think it is possible without tacit endorsement of military conquest as producing favorable outcomes.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Neither side is close to exhaustion so negosiations will not go anywhere
A tempoary ceasefire will not help either given it benefits Russia
Expectation for war will simply continue for years

2-3 years at the current tempo and attriton rate for Russian stockpiles to be deplated and then war will be fought with just manufactered arms production
Depending on the military situation Negosiation can start at this time

 

[Birdjaguar]

There is no negotiating at this point. Both sides are entrenched in their positions and conditions for peace. The best path is to push one side to winning on the battlefield. So, more aid to Ukraine is need sooner. As soon as Putin smells defeat of his army and loss of Crimea he will rush to negotiate.

 

[Senethro]

Has Russia made peace in any of its recent conflicts?

 

[Remorseless1]

When you know what the Ukraine wants, what would you do with that information?

Oh, I'm certain both sides have long since indicated what their goals and expectations are in this situation. So basically I'd give Ukraine anything and everything they want. My point here is that we do not live in the 1400s and provincial land grabs by kings should not be tolerated. There is zero justification for Russia's actions -- even Putin's claim of NATO encroachment fall flat in the face of the sad state of most European militaries. Rewarding a regime for an outright display of naked aggression only encourages more of Putin's ilk to take similar actions in East Asia.

 

[saamohod]

There are no winners in war. Only losers and dead people.

That's BS. There were definitely winners and losers after the WW2.

 

[Akka]

Thank you for your opinion.
I'm asking how you - as a negotiator - would handle the situation.

How would you handle a rape happening under your eyes ?
There is nothing to "negotiate" about, either you allow the crime to happen or you act to stop it. You can disguise the "I'll let you rape her while asking you to not be brutal" as "negotiation", but that's just saving face (like China is trying to pretend to do), and if you are the one on the receiving end of rape you certainly won't consider it "negociable".

There is only one way to handle it : give Ukraine as much support as possible to kick Russia back to its territory. You can only negotiate with people who have an actual interest in negociation, and Russia has made it very clear that they have absolutely no interest beyond "gaining time to attack again".

 

[Senethro]

How would you handle a rape happening under your eyes ?
There is nothing to "negotiate" about, either you allow the crime to happen or you act to stop it. You can disguise the "I'll let you rape her while asking you to not be brutal" as "negotiation", but that's just saving face (like China is trying to pretend to do), and if you are the one on the receiving end of rape you certainly won't consider it "negociable".

There is only one way to handle it : give Ukraine as much support as possible to kick Russia back to its territory. You can only negotiate with people who have an actual interest in negociation, and Russia has made it very clear that they have absolutely no interest beyond "gaining time to attack again".

There is a strange gap between the tone and the analysis here.

 

[saamohod]

Cease fire and exchange of prisoners.

Agreed. And persecution of war criminals.

Creation of demilitarized zone and its location.

Already in progress in Belgorod (Bilhorod) oblast

Possibility for Russia to cede back some territories it currently controls

On what grounds? I'd agree to leave Sevastopol to Russia... before the invasion. Now you don't deserve that either.

Ukraine's non-alignment status in exchange for security guarantees from NATO members.

Ukrainian people will themselves decide which defensive alliances to join. Russia is the only country whose opinion on this matter can be disregarded.

Possibility to organize referendums in disputed territories, with international observers and voting rights for residents who lived there at the beginning of 2014.

Not before the ethnic cleansing caused by Russia on these territories is reversed as much as possible

Status of Russian and Ukrainian languages in Donbass and Crimea

Agreed. But we will sort it out between ourselves. Russia's involvement and advice not needed.