Tom Paine 1949
Diamond Member
- Mar 15, 2020
- 5,407
- 4,503
- 1,938
This OP is not about “sanctions” — which will not end Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — but about diplomatic / military realities of the war itself.
The possibilities for a neutral Ukraine disappeared in 2014 and chances for a diplomatic settlement ended with Putin’s bloody February 2022 invasion. That invasion poisoned relations between Ukrainians and Russians … for generations,
The escalating U.S. shipment of arms to Ukraine to defend itself and “liberate all its sovereign territory” masks a number of hard questions. Increasing casualties and exhaustion of both sides — without significant result on the battlefield — may soon re-open new opportunities for diplomacy.
In my opinion, leading responsible political elements in the U.S. must now begin to recognize the exceptional status of Crimea and raise the possibility of an internationally supervised referendum there. In short, they should raise the issue of the “right to self-determination” for Crimea.
Such a “realistic” — don’t laugh just yet — and far-sighted diplomatic proposal, along with continuing military and economic support to Ukraine, could offer hope of an eventual exit from “endless war.”
Its real and immediate purpose and value, assuming exhaustion on all sides settles in, would be to undercut the Russian people’s support for Putin’s invasion and his fascistic campaign to exterminate Ukrainian national sovereignty altogether. Putin’s argument that the Russian state’s very existence is threatened by Ukrainian national self-defense (backed by the West) would be weakened tremendously if such a diplomatic theme were raised by the Biden Administration … at the same time as it continues (or even carefully escalates) arms shipments.
It would also help to unify our own public in the U.S., rightly suspicious of more “endless war” adventurism. It would weaken the appeal of MAGA Republican appeasers and pro-Putin apologists. It would also be in sync with past international law and practice in resolving such complex historic problems. Of course it would disrupt the hopes of certain Western money interests who eye developing pipelines and oil resources under the Black Sea. The neo-con / neo-liberal “maximalists” in the Western community — who really are determined to force the break up the Russian state — will oppose such a diplomatic proposal strongly.
The overthrow of the corrupt (but fairly elected) Ukrainian government by the “Maidan Revolution” in 2014 was followed by a rushed, flawed but genuinely popular Crimean referendum to separate from Ukraine and join Russia. Raising tentatively the possibility of an eventual new referendum under UN supervision would also prevent Crimea becoming a destroyed & depopulated battlefield like much of Donbas, and give time for saner emotions to emerge, while allowing an exhausted Ukraine to concentrate on rebuilding itself, as it must.
The possibilities for a neutral Ukraine disappeared in 2014 and chances for a diplomatic settlement ended with Putin’s bloody February 2022 invasion. That invasion poisoned relations between Ukrainians and Russians … for generations,
The escalating U.S. shipment of arms to Ukraine to defend itself and “liberate all its sovereign territory” masks a number of hard questions. Increasing casualties and exhaustion of both sides — without significant result on the battlefield — may soon re-open new opportunities for diplomacy.
In my opinion, leading responsible political elements in the U.S. must now begin to recognize the exceptional status of Crimea and raise the possibility of an internationally supervised referendum there. In short, they should raise the issue of the “right to self-determination” for Crimea.
Such a “realistic” — don’t laugh just yet — and far-sighted diplomatic proposal, along with continuing military and economic support to Ukraine, could offer hope of an eventual exit from “endless war.”
Its real and immediate purpose and value, assuming exhaustion on all sides settles in, would be to undercut the Russian people’s support for Putin’s invasion and his fascistic campaign to exterminate Ukrainian national sovereignty altogether. Putin’s argument that the Russian state’s very existence is threatened by Ukrainian national self-defense (backed by the West) would be weakened tremendously if such a diplomatic theme were raised by the Biden Administration … at the same time as it continues (or even carefully escalates) arms shipments.
It would also help to unify our own public in the U.S., rightly suspicious of more “endless war” adventurism. It would weaken the appeal of MAGA Republican appeasers and pro-Putin apologists. It would also be in sync with past international law and practice in resolving such complex historic problems. Of course it would disrupt the hopes of certain Western money interests who eye developing pipelines and oil resources under the Black Sea. The neo-con / neo-liberal “maximalists” in the Western community — who really are determined to force the break up the Russian state — will oppose such a diplomatic proposal strongly.
The overthrow of the corrupt (but fairly elected) Ukrainian government by the “Maidan Revolution” in 2014 was followed by a rushed, flawed but genuinely popular Crimean referendum to separate from Ukraine and join Russia. Raising tentatively the possibility of an eventual new referendum under UN supervision would also prevent Crimea becoming a destroyed & depopulated battlefield like much of Donbas, and give time for saner emotions to emerge, while allowing an exhausted Ukraine to concentrate on rebuilding itself, as it must.
Last edited:
