The current solution in Ireland is the Good Friday Agreement and not an agreement to disagree. It includes in Wikipedia’s words:
The agreement reached was that Northern Ireland was part of the United Kingdom, and would remain so until a majority of the people both of Northern Ireland and of the Republic of Ireland wished otherwise. Should that happen, then the British and Irish governments are under “a binding obligation” to implement that choice.
[...]
The agreement affirmed a commitment to “the mutual respect, the civil rights and the religious liberties of everyone in the community”. The multi-party agreement recognised “the importance of respect, understanding and tolerance in relation to linguistic diversity”, especially in relation to the Irish language, Ulster Scots, and the languages of Northern Ireland’s other ethnic minorities, “all of which are part of the cultural wealth of the island of Ireland”.
If we would follow the same principles in Ukraine it would mean giving regions referendums to decide whether the population wants to belong to Ukraine or Russia. Respect for minority languages is also part of the agreement.
If the Western response in 2014 would have been: “Let’s implement the equivalent of the Good Friday Agreement for Ukraine”, Russia would have been very happy but the Ukrainians don’t want to grant its ethnic Russian population an equivalent. The same would have likely been the case this year.
This post is largely a call to the West moving toward those principles in regard to Ukraine.
The people and politicians of Northern Ireland do not agree. The politicians there may put their names to it, but Sinn Fein want union with the Republic, the DUP want continuing union with Britain, and the people vote accordingly. There is and can be no reconciliation between the two demands—see the kerfuffle over border controls since Brexit. The Good Friday Agreement is no more than an agreement to stop bombing each other and put off the problem sine die.
Referenda were held in parts of Ukraine under Russian control. Do you take them seriously? This is separate from the question of what the outcome of a real referendum would be.
This post is largely a call to the West moving toward those principles in regard to Ukraine.
Since these principles are largely absent from Russia’s treatment of its own peoples, this is a one-sided call. And as Russia began this with an invasion aiming at the Ukrainian capital, it is wishful thinking to imagine Putin being “happy” with cession to Russia of the territories that he is falling back on, beyond saving his domestic face.
Referenda were held in parts of Ukraine under Russian control. Do you take them seriously?
I don’t think that matters much. If the West wants serious referenda it could easily set the conditions for those referenda.
The politicians there may put their names to it, but Sinn Fein want union with the Republic, the DUP want continuing union with Britain, and the people vote accordingly.
The agreement is that both sides say that the union is determined by public opinion. Within that agreement, it’s possible to change public opinion about what’s preferred. Both Sinn Fein and DUP agree on the fact that you can do a binding referendum about the question of what union should exist.
This is the general way you prevent violence with democracy. You agree to not decide your conflict via violence but with democratic measures. That still means you have a conflict but on the democratic field instead of a violent one.
Putin being “happy” with cession to Russia of the territories that he is falling back on, beyond saving his domestic face.
I think you underrate the importance that domestic political support has for politicians. Putin could easily say “Hey, we didn’t get everything but we managed to protect the people from Donesk and Luhanzk and that is what matters.”
The current solution in Ireland is the Good Friday Agreement and not an agreement to disagree. It includes in Wikipedia’s words:
If we would follow the same principles in Ukraine it would mean giving regions referendums to decide whether the population wants to belong to Ukraine or Russia. Respect for minority languages is also part of the agreement.
If the Western response in 2014 would have been: “Let’s implement the equivalent of the Good Friday Agreement for Ukraine”, Russia would have been very happy but the Ukrainians don’t want to grant its ethnic Russian population an equivalent. The same would have likely been the case this year.
This post is largely a call to the West moving toward those principles in regard to Ukraine.
The people and politicians of Northern Ireland do not agree. The politicians there may put their names to it, but Sinn Fein want union with the Republic, the DUP want continuing union with Britain, and the people vote accordingly. There is and can be no reconciliation between the two demands—see the kerfuffle over border controls since Brexit. The Good Friday Agreement is no more than an agreement to stop bombing each other and put off the problem sine die.
Referenda were held in parts of Ukraine under Russian control. Do you take them seriously? This is separate from the question of what the outcome of a real referendum would be.
Since these principles are largely absent from Russia’s treatment of its own peoples, this is a one-sided call. And as Russia began this with an invasion aiming at the Ukrainian capital, it is wishful thinking to imagine Putin being “happy” with cession to Russia of the territories that he is falling back on, beyond saving his domestic face.
I don’t think that matters much. If the West wants serious referenda it could easily set the conditions for those referenda.
The agreement is that both sides say that the union is determined by public opinion. Within that agreement, it’s possible to change public opinion about what’s preferred. Both Sinn Fein and DUP agree on the fact that you can do a binding referendum about the question of what union should exist.
This is the general way you prevent violence with democracy. You agree to not decide your conflict via violence but with democratic measures. That still means you have a conflict but on the democratic field instead of a violent one.
I think you underrate the importance that domestic political support has for politicians. Putin could easily say “Hey, we didn’t get everything but we managed to protect the people from Donesk and Luhanzk and that is what matters.”
Well, yes. That is literally an agreement to disagree.