The US could start the real negotiations right now if they wanted to do so.
Making the Ukrainian population accept a peace settlement along the lines of what Musk proposed won’t be easy. Zelensky might very well lose his presidency over such a peace settlement.
By not openly discussing it the Ukrainian population gets more and more certain that they will get Crimea back.
Musk proposition gives Ukraine no significant security guarantees AND forces it to lose territory. It’s basically a total win for Russia, and an excellent incentive to try again in 10 years (or maybe vs. the Baltic states or Georgia).
The Baltic states don’t have areas where Russia would gain anything from them having a referendum to join Russia because nobody would vote “Yes”. The Baltic states are protected by NATO. Even for those who considered the argument about the Baltic states reasonable before the latest invasion the performance of the Russian army should clearly suggest that any violation of NATO borders is a bad idea for Russia.
It’s difficult to hold territory against the wishes of the local population and produces all sorts of internal problems. The Wikileaks cable is really interesting in that it regards the Russian foreign policy crowd as wanting to avoid having to act within Ukraine.
The present Georgian situation seems to be fine for Russia without a need to do something about it. From one article:
With Georgia unlikely to join either NATO or the EU any time soon, Moscow may be increasingly resigned to, and accepting of, Tbilisi nonetheless remaining outside its foreign policy orbit. Indeed, some in Moscow argue that Russia’s recognition of both breakaways was a mistake, in that it left Tbilisi with no strategic choice save the prospect of Western integration. “If we had recognised only South Ossetia, Russia could still have traded off the fate of Abkhazia”, one expert said. The present situation may not seem ideal when seen through Russia’s eyes, but it appears to be acceptable.
As far as Ukraine goes, Ukraine can improve its military as well over the next ten years. Clearing the reasons why the Russian public wanted this war is a way to reduce incentives for another invasion as well.
Sadly, the dynamics of most conflict resolutions is like that. Each party has to start believing that their initial objectives are unachievable. And that is not the case in Ukraine, or in Russia for that matter. Absent some spectacular victories by either side, it will take months of fighting before both sides are ready to talk. An external push would not help here. If you look at labor disputes, it is the same pattern. The outline of an agreement is known well in advance, but the resolve has to be tested with strikes, lockouts and sometimes violence before the inevitable outcome is grudgingly accepted by both sides.
Most labor disputes have only two sides that really matter. In Ukraine, the decision of the United States and European nations to support Ukraine matters a great deal. The West could make its support of Ukraine more conditional.
The US can set conditions for Ukraine for its support. With the likely success of the Republicans taking Congress that could even happen.
There are a variety of moves that the US could do. If I would be Tucker Carlson or a Republican congressman I would say:
“The Ukrainian military has to stop committing war crimes with US weapons. To make sure that this happens there will be a US military unit tasked with observing the actions of the Ukrainians and publicizing war crimes committed by the Ukrainians. To make sure that the US military unit does a proper job, we should invite some people from Amnesty International to oversee that US military unit so it does a proper job.”
Carlson should invite someone from Amnesty International and ask them what the US can do so that Ukraine commits fewer war crimes.
Another move would be to say:
“Ukraine will only get further military and economic aid from the United States if they make a good faith effort at negotiating a peace settlement. The congressmen should think about whether or not they believe Ukraine made the good faith effort when the next funding bill comes around”
Conditions like that could be written into the next funding bill.
Hearing that someone in the Ukraine Amnesty branch stepped down because he doesn’t like Amnesty called out Ukrainian war crimes, should likely make me update into the direction of Ukrainians caring less about human rights and not in the direction of them caring more.
If someone complains that X is completely normal, why are you complaining about X? You should update in the direction of them also doing X when you aren’t looking.
The fact that the London office of Amnesty is neutral is a feature and not a bug.
Even if it’s true that Russia is committing more war crimes than Ukraine I don’t think that changes anything about it being valuable to reduce the number of war crimes that Ukraine commits.
I do think the US should tell the Ukrainians “Don’t lunch the missiles we give you from residential areas.” I do think that the US knows where the HIMARS missile launchers are at any time so should have an easy time to enforce this.
If you don’t think that the Ukrainians commit war crimes, what would it hurt, to have a US military unit with access to all the war surveillance, making sure that’s the case?
The US could start the real negotiations right now if they wanted to do so.
Making the Ukrainian population accept a peace settlement along the lines of what Musk proposed won’t be easy. Zelensky might very well lose his presidency over such a peace settlement.
By not openly discussing it the Ukrainian population gets more and more certain that they will get Crimea back.
Musk proposition gives Ukraine no significant security guarantees AND forces it to lose territory. It’s basically a total win for Russia, and an excellent incentive to try again in 10 years (or maybe vs. the Baltic states or Georgia).
The Baltic states don’t have areas where Russia would gain anything from them having a referendum to join Russia because nobody would vote “Yes”. The Baltic states are protected by NATO. Even for those who considered the argument about the Baltic states reasonable before the latest invasion the performance of the Russian army should clearly suggest that any violation of NATO borders is a bad idea for Russia.
It’s difficult to hold territory against the wishes of the local population and produces all sorts of internal problems. The Wikileaks cable is really interesting in that it regards the Russian foreign policy crowd as wanting to avoid having to act within Ukraine.
The present Georgian situation seems to be fine for Russia without a need to do something about it. From one article:
As far as Ukraine goes, Ukraine can improve its military as well over the next ten years. Clearing the reasons why the Russian public wanted this war is a way to reduce incentives for another invasion as well.
I don’t think this is important. Results of referendums in occupied Ukrainian territories (Crimea 2014 referendum not included) are falsified anyway.
We are talking about whether an Elon Musk-style peace deal that involves an independent referendum would be good.
I think that it’s very unlikely that it would motivate Russia to attack the Baltic states.
Sadly, the dynamics of most conflict resolutions is like that. Each party has to start believing that their initial objectives are unachievable. And that is not the case in Ukraine, or in Russia for that matter. Absent some spectacular victories by either side, it will take months of fighting before both sides are ready to talk. An external push would not help here. If you look at labor disputes, it is the same pattern. The outline of an agreement is known well in advance, but the resolve has to be tested with strikes, lockouts and sometimes violence before the inevitable outcome is grudgingly accepted by both sides.
Most labor disputes have only two sides that really matter. In Ukraine, the decision of the United States and European nations to support Ukraine matters a great deal. The West could make its support of Ukraine more conditional.
The US can set conditions for Ukraine for its support. With the likely success of the Republicans taking Congress that could even happen.
What conditions would make sense?
There are a variety of moves that the US could do. If I would be Tucker Carlson or a Republican congressman I would say:
“The Ukrainian military has to stop committing war crimes with US weapons. To make sure that this happens there will be a US military unit tasked with observing the actions of the Ukrainians and publicizing war crimes committed by the Ukrainians. To make sure that the US military unit does a proper job, we should invite some people from Amnesty International to oversee that US military unit so it does a proper job.”
Carlson should invite someone from Amnesty International and ask them what the US can do so that Ukraine commits fewer war crimes.
Another move would be to say:
“Ukraine will only get further military and economic aid from the United States if they make a good faith effort at negotiating a peace settlement. The congressmen should think about whether or not they believe Ukraine made the good faith effort when the next funding bill comes around”
Conditions like that could be written into the next funding bill.
Did your “commit less war crimes” (link to Amnesty international) position changed in response to Villiam’s comment about how Amnesty’s reports work?
Hearing that someone in the Ukraine Amnesty branch stepped down because he doesn’t like Amnesty called out Ukrainian war crimes, should likely make me update into the direction of Ukrainians caring less about human rights and not in the direction of them caring more.
If someone complains that X is completely normal, why are you complaining about X? You should update in the direction of them also doing X when you aren’t looking.
The fact that the London office of Amnesty is neutral is a feature and not a bug.
Even if it’s true that Russia is committing more war crimes than Ukraine I don’t think that changes anything about it being valuable to reduce the number of war crimes that Ukraine commits.
I do think the US should tell the Ukrainians “Don’t lunch the missiles we give you from residential areas.” I do think that the US knows where the HIMARS missile launchers are at any time so should have an easy time to enforce this.
If you don’t think that the Ukrainians commit war crimes, what would it hurt, to have a US military unit with access to all the war surveillance, making sure that’s the case?