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

[amadeus]

This is where my beef comes in—how is a neutral mediator going to concede that Russia has a sphere of influence without breaking that neutrality?

If this neutral mediator’s responsibility is to uphold the precedent of international law, codified or not, then I don’t see anything other than a complete withdrawal of Russian forces from the 1991 borders of Ukraine to be a valid expression of that neutrality.

 

[red_elk]

This is where my beef comes in—how is a neutral mediator going to concede that Russia has a sphere of influence without breaking that neutrality?

If this neutral mediator’s responsibility is to uphold the precedent of international law, codified or not, then I don’t see anything other than a complete withdrawal of Russian forces from the 1991 borders of Ukraine to be a valid expression of that neutrality.

This means you support one side of the conflict and therefore not neutral.

 

[REDY]

So law or moral justice are russophobic?

 

[amadeus]

This means you support one side of the conflict and therefore not neutral.

Yes, granting Moscow control over the internal affairs of another country is decidedly not neutral.

Suppose you have two neighbors, one has a really big house and a lot of weight to throw around. The other neighbor is on a small plot of land, relatively poor, but while uninfluential is still well-liked by the townsfolk.

The poor neighbor isn’t very good at garden upkeep so says the big neighbor next door (who he himself is somewhat of a ramshackle gardener, digging up the rocky southern part of his own yard sometimes) and the “blight“ is causing him and only him distress, so he decides to redraw the property line over the neighbor’s yard and build a fence over it.

Is the county assessor going to come around and say “well, Mr. Big House has a big house so I guess he can keep some of the land.” That’s a fair outcome?

 

[red_elk]

Yes, granting Moscow control over the internal affairs of another country is decidedly not neutral.

Suppose you have two neighbors, one has a really big house and a lot of weight to throw around. The other neighbor is on a small plot of land, relatively poor, but while uninfluential is still well-liked by the townsfolk.

The poor neighbor isn’t very good at garden upkeep so says the big neighbor next door (who he himself is somewhat of a ramshackle gardener, digging up the rocky southern part of his own yard sometimes) and the “blight“ is causing him and only him distress, so he decides to redraw the property line over the neighbor’s yard and build a fence over it.

Is the county assessor going to come around and say “well, Mr. Big House has a big house so I guess he can keep some of the land.” That’s a fair outcome?

No, but I don't think your analogy is accurate.

 

[Cutlass]

Sanctions nuclear option: No firm which does buisiness with the US, NATO, or EU, nations may do business with Russia until Russia withdraws to the USSR breakup borders.

 

[Akka]

This means you support one side of the conflict and therefore not neutral.

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".

Called it.

 

[Kyriakos]

At the point we are at, it can't happen, but UN-organized referendums in Crimea/Donbass would have been a solution.
Sleepwalking into world war is far worse, but it's not the first time some expect a great war to end stuff.
One wonders how it is that being righteous only emerges for some non-Ukrainians when it coexists with hopes that Russia is "decolonized", partitioned etc. Such righteousness would have prevented much lament if it came without that prerequisite, which appears to be more of an active ingredient.

 

[saamohod]

At the point we are at, it can't happen, but UN-organized referendums in Crimea/Donbass would have been a solution.

Assuming this is going to happen one day, Russia has to voluntarily withdraw from other massive chunks of land they already incorporated in their constitution. Do you see it as a feasible option? Because I don't.
Also those referendum should include those pro-Ukrainian citizens that were expelled from Crimea/Donbass since 2014. There were many of them.

Sleepwalking into world war is far worse

You know what is worse? Appeasing a fascist totalitarian country on a landgrab spree. Because what could go wrong really.

 

[Kyriakos]

I don't see Russia leaving, no.
Which is why I expect this to escalate to ww at some point, with the deciding element in regards to whether it will become ww or not being if Ukraine is losing (because I doubt Ukraine can be left to lose).

 

[Zardnaar]

I don't see Russia leaving, no.
Which is why I expect this to escalate to ww at some point, with the deciding element in regards to whether it will become ww or not being if Ukraine is losing (because I doubt Ukraine can be left to lose).

I don't see it becoming a WW. If Russia gets pushed back sucks to be them.

If Ukraine gets pushed back wouldn't be surprised if Polish volunteers from their army decide to go on holiday in Ukraine. With all their equipment.

If any bombs etc land on NATO or if Belarus/China jump in NATO volunteers launch a SMO of their own.

No one officially at war.

Russias already lost even if Ukraine collapses tomorrow and no one else intervenes. Polands disappeared off the map before along with a Greek state.

Russia "wins" they still have a collapsing economy, terrible demographics, and then a Vietnam style occupation while sactioned, embargoed etc.

Chinas in a similar boat no sanctions though. Ukraine may as well be in the sane boat but has help available and hope eg EU membership.

 

[Kyriakos]

I really doubt Ukraine, by now, can be left to lose. So let's hope that it either somehow wins without foreign troops taking part, or there is some mediation and an agreement.
But imo the risk of ww is very real, and tied to whether Ukraine starts losing and can't reverse that.

 

[Senethro]

The prevention of the next war is a more desirable outcome than the "bad guys" "losing".

 

[Kyriakos]

It's not all doom and gloom. For example, if Ukraine does end up losing irreversibly, @r16 's country will be "persuaded" to help ^^

Imo it might be of use to have a thread (don't really feel like starting it) about what a new world war would mean. Sadly, if it happens, it will be hard even for countries not taking part, and we can say goodbye (for a few years) to everything we up to now regarded as standard quality of life (let alone threat of famine in parts of Europe and elsewhere).

 

[Gorbles]

At the point we are at, it can't happen, but UN-organized referendums in Crimea/Donbass would have been a solution.

Would it have been? How would've Russia viewed the legitimacy of said referendums? Would Russia have treated them as neutral, independent actions?

And if so, why were independent observers not allowed into Crimea at the time (working from memory as I'm knee-deep in documentation at work, but pretty sure this was the case)?

 

[Kyriakos]

Would it have been? How would've Russia viewed the legitimacy of said referendums? Would Russia have treated them as neutral, independent actions?

And if so, why were independent observers not allowed into Crimea at the time (working from memory as I'm knee-deep in documentation at work, but pretty sure this was the case)?

The hypothetical (already said it is not to happen) would include Russia agreeing to such.

 

[amadeus]

The precedent this would set—the gunpoint referendum—seems like a suboptimal outcome for someone who wants to keep a peaceable world order.

 

[Gorbles]

The hypothetical (already said it is not to happen) would include Russia agreeing to such.

Yes, but how? Why would they? At what point in time, what change in the timeline, would need to have happened for Russia to even agree in the first place?

 

[red_elk]

The hypothetical (already said it is not to happen) would include Russia agreeing to such.

(From 2014)

MOSCOW, March 10 (Reuters) - Ukraine’s Crimea region has invited the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to send a mission to observe Sunday’s referendum on joining Russia, Russia’s RIA news agency said on Monday.

It said the invitation had been issued to the Vienna-based security and human rights organisation by the region’s pro-Russian parliament.

But later in the day, a OSCE spokeswoman said Crimea could not invite observers as the region was not a full-fledged state and therefore not a member of the 57-member organisation.

RPT UPDATE 1-Crimea invites OSCE observers for referendum on joining Russia

Ukraine's Crimea region has invited the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to send a mission to observe Sunday's referendum on joining Russia, Russia's RIA news agency said on Monday.

www.reuters.com

 

[red_elk]

Russia had all reasons to let international observers participate, in order to legitimize the referendum, as there were no doubts in the voting results.