|
A Peace Proposal For Ukraine
b here:
The text below, an outline of a peace agreement over Ukraine, was send to me by a west-European source that wants to stay anonymous. Its purpose is to begin a discussion about the content of such an agreement. As such it is starting point, not an end result.
I personally disagree with many of its clauses. With some for practical reasons, with others for the legal consequences they imply (III.1).
But one has to start somewhere if one wants to discuss how the war in Ukraine should or can end.
—
A Peace Russia Should Propose
By RationalPeacekeeper
Background:
Nobody knows where this is going to end. The only thing for sure is that the risk of nuclear Armageddon for humanity has increased dramatically. This is insane. At the moment, no party seems to be interested in ending the conflict peacefully. However minute the prospect of settling this conflict may be, and however illusory it might be perceived, it is worth discussing visionary plans on which reasonable people could agree on.
This is a Russian-friendly perspective. People brainwashed with western propaganda will have a hard time to digest it. The objective therefore is not to promote to dishonest catchwords such as “territorial integrity” or “defending our freedom” but to focus on what is best for people’s lives, based on humanitarian principles and readiness for reconciliation.
Such a peace will need international mediation. Since organizations such as the UN and OSCE are western-dominated, a balanced choice of countries has to be made which have kept a neutral status and no interest in continuing the war. Examples, not complete: Turkey, Portugal, Italy, Austria, Switzerland, Hungary, India, China, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico. These will be called “peace countries” in the following. This is how a sketch of an agreement could look:
I. Military:
1. General ceasefire
2. Soldiers of peace countries are deployed to the front line after conflict parties’ guaranties.
3. Heavy weapons are retreated at a distance of 30 km from the frontline.
4. Irrespective of details, the overall objectives are transparency of the peace process and to hinder the outbreak of spontaneous hostilities.
5. Peace countries control the ceasefire agreement. Treason of individuals in favor of one of the conflict parties must be severely punished.
6. Conflict parties commit to reveal reconnaissance data when ceasefire violations occur.
II. Territory:
1. Since a referendum with clear outcome has taken place, Crimea remains Russian.
2. The Donbas Republics are recognized, but have to cede a part of their sovereignty to an international administration run by the peace countries. They must be demilitarized.
3. The oblasts Kherson and Zaporizhzhia are under sovereignty and administration of the peace countries for two years and become demilitarized.
4. After two years, a referendum is held to decide whether Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia (each for their own) become independent or remain part of Ukraine. Independence implies the right to become part of the Russian federation later. The anonymous referendum is organized by the peace countries. A majority of 60 percent is required for the decision, otherwise the referendum has to be repeated. After the referendum, there is a transition period in which people are guaranteed a fair compensation for abandoned property.
5. The oblasts Cherniv, Sumy, Kharkov, Dnjepropetrowsk, Nikolaev and Odessa become demilitarized.
III. Politics:
1. Russia acknowledges the violation of international law in 2022, NATO and EU acknowledge their responsibility for the conflict since 2014.
2. Ukraine can politically become a NATO member, but no foreign troops and no missile systems can be deployed on its territory. Ukraine can become EU member.
3. Ukraine’s constitution must guarantee equal rights to all ethnicities. Russian must become an official language.
4. All political prisoners must be released, all parties prohibited since 2014 must be allowed, all media closed since 2014 must become legal again. All laws concerning “collaboration with occupants” must be abolished.
5. Extremism and promoting ethnic conflicts must be punished by law.
6. Ukraine must tolerate access and control of the above regulations by peace countries.
7. Arms control negotiations are resumed.
IV. Economics:
1. Russia pays a significant compensation for civilian casualties, such as 100.000 Euro for each documented victim, distributed over 5-10 years.
2. Russia pays for damaged civilian buildings and infrastructure an amount of 100 billion euros, distributed over 10 years.
Remark: this is not to disregard civilian casualties in Russia or Donbas, but a consequence of the economic realities.
3. NATO/EU and allied countries lift all sanctions against Russia. Russia commits to pre-war obligations.
V. Society:
1. Russia, Ukraine and NATO officially regret the casualties since 2014.
2. Amnesty in Ukraine and Russia for all non-violent criminal offenses regarding the conflict.
3. War crimes of individuals are brought to a court consisting of judges of peace countries. Conflict parties cede their right of prosecution and commit to collaborating in the investigations.
4. All restrictions on media are lifted in Russia, Ukraine and EU.
5. A joint internet mourning site is set up for all victims of the war, to document the horrors of war in the spirit of reconciliation.
6. A commission of historians and scientists working on all controversial events of the past decades, such as MH 17, Skripal, etc. (List not complete!) An annual conference is to held, with open access to anyone interested. All governments commit to disclose relevant information. The objective is to allow for dissenting opinions while following an evidence- based approach.
7. An international political discussion forum, similar to talk shows, with automatic translations and video streaming is established. All countries commit to send high-rank officials and guarantee access to journalists.
8. All parties commit to intercultural dialogue. All travel restrictions are lifted, electronic visas for tourists should be issued on short notice.
9. A permanent commission involving peace countries can propose amendments to this treaty.
To be signed by: Russia, Ukraine, all NATO members, EU members, peace countries.
To reiterate: Given the state of western governments, I have no illusions that they are even faintly interested in implementing such a plan. Public discussion about a peaceful solution must start however.
@Tom_Pfotzer #352
You said
Tom: You may be right, (and I currently believe you are), but time will tell, and tell decisively. One or the other of the combatants in this game is going to be significantly weakened by this counter-attack. If it is pure Twitter warfare, it’s going to be obvious in a few days.
Again, the key is actual troops forced out of combat / equipment destroyed. There is none in the “Ukrainian Kharkiv victory zone”: the LDPR, Rosgardia and AFR were withdrawn from ~15K to 20K when Izyum was first taken down to ~2K at the time of the “counteroffensive”. These troops were not mauled or captured by the counteroffensive – they withdrew on their own terms. End of story.
c1ue said: “This is a small tithe of Russia’s military engaging in a Special Military Operation and succeeding in its objectives.”
Tom: c1ue, that assertion surely doesn’t explain all the other parties to this war, nor does it explain the cleave line between the haves and have-not-yets (West .vs. the rest), manifested in the “who imposed the sanctions” and “who went along with it”. Old money imposed the sanctions, and old money went along with it. ROW: not.
Those political cleave-lines exist, and are hardening, because that’s the continental divide among national interests. So I think you’re overlooking a lot of the dynamic if you characterize the Ukraine war as simply Russia .vs. some local Nazi miscreants.
What you said is accurate, but you are conflating “neutrality” – i.e. not adhering to either Russian or Western directives – with advocacy. The vast majority of the world is being neutral, which is a vast change from past behavior re: American diktats, but that is still a far cry from active rebellion vs. the Pax Americana.
Note I am not saying this rebellion cannot occur in the future; I am saying it has not yet happened. India, for example, has always tried to chart its own path; the Indian military’s leanings towards Soviet/Russian doctrine and gear is offset by its IT sectors whole hearted embrace of Silicon Valley, surveillance capitalism and the US.
c1ue said: “In addition, Russia the country has decisively won the economic war and gained the support or neutrality of most of the world in the process, but this is not the ROW vs. NATO shooting it out in Ukraine.”
Tom: Key point here: it is the West (bulldozer-blade NATO) .vs. Russia at the moment, but sides are definitely being taken. The non-West desperately wants Russia to win, are scared to weigh in too heavily at present (fear of U.S. reprisal) but are becoming progressively bolder in their defiance of Western edicts (see: KSA, Turkey, India, esp. China). Russia is first player to be big enough and mad enough (threatened enough) to directly take on U.S. and the immediate circle of predators. The non-West wishes they could, but are currently afraid. That’s why this current counter-attack (Ukrainian surge) is so very interesting, and why I said a lot of global politics are riding on the the outcome.
I disagree with your characterization – it is too simplistic. Turkey, for example, is profiting mightily by not fully adhering to the NATO position – but it is simultaneously acting against Russian interests by egging on Azerbaijan vs. Armenia as well as having been a major part of the attempted Kazakhstan coup.
KSA in turn is not against the US; they simply are acting logically given that the US continues to play footsie with Iran vs. being 100% anti-Iran as was the case ever since the Iran hostage crisis.
I repeat: it is too early to say that the rest of the world is putting its words and acts against Pax Americana.
Tom said, in prev post: “The best way to achieve peace is to insure that the NeoCons et. al. are absolutely and unequivocally blamed and held accountable for the disasters they continue to visit upon the planet.”
c1ue replied: “This is, at best, a fantasy. Media control in the West guarantees that the worst possible outcome will never be known. And those who tell the truth via their kazoos will be drowned out by the same Foghorn of Big Media.”
Tom: Correct, for a while, and then not. As the have-nots organize and integrate it’ll become progressively more work to shift blame for what’s coming. It can certainly be done for a while, and surely will be. Your remarks below, I believe, presage what’s coming.
Love the expression “tell the truth via their kazoos”. That was great.
I can’t take credit for the kazoos – that was first said by iTulip, years ago.
As for the rest: I honestly don’t know. The US has full capability to buy off the lower 40% (bread and circuses) for decades. The Roman empire survived for centuries this way even as its ability to project power outside its borders disappeared. I believe it is far more likely that the citizens of Rome (the US) will go about their lives in illusion right up until the day the barbarians sack Rome. And if the barbarians don’t – the illusion stays.
c1ue said : “Furthermore, this characterization is wrong [e.g. Tom’s assertion that Ukraine war is all the NeoCon/Predators’ fault]. The loudest voices supporting sending arms and money to Ukraine from the US and EU are the “liberals” admittedly cheered on by the neocons. But there is no question who is leading and populating this political movement: the left. The same left cheering on the FBI and CIA, etc etc. LOL.”
Tom: Are you saying that the Repubs or Trumps or Fox are out trumpeting “No war for Ukraine!!”? “Drop the Sanctions!”? I have entirely missed that, c1ue, and maybe because I don’t watch much MSM. Did I miss it?
The Republican party – the old guard (dinosaurs) are the Neocons. However, the Trump/populist types as well as the libertarians have been against the war. The only Senators to not vote for the big Ukraine $40+B package were Josh Hawley and Ron Paul. Tucker Carlson has also repeatedly and continuously asked why America is defending Ukraine’s borders when we aren’t even defending our own borders. I posted in (OT Not Ukraine) where even DefenseOne noted that conservative groups are pushing against the support for Ukraine.
You may not want to admit it, but the only people actively pushing against US support for Ukraine are on the right.
Question for c1ue: Why did you introduce the central banks and commodity super-cycles into the discussion here? You clearly think there’s a linkage, care to expound?
The link is that – whether by accident or design – Putin/Russia and Xi/China have chosen the perfect time to expose the Emperor’s New Clothes. As I have expounded on – no doubt to everyone’s boredom – COVID lockdowns/supply chain disruptions plus ESG have put the nail in the coffin of Western dominance of the world economy. Decades of economic and technocratic malfeasance are now coming home to roost.
Good to hear from you, c1ue. Always stimulating.
Cheers. While we sometimes fight like an old married couple – nonetheless I do appreciate your honest viewpoint. It is via the public discussion of widely differing views through which everyone can learn.
Posted by: c1ue | Sep 14 2022 13:47 utc | 636
|
