I don’t see a potential insurgency as being significant. Crimea has a population of 2.2 million, which will probably drop below 2 million if the Ukrainians ever retake it due to the exodus of the pro-Russian population. Ukraine itself has a population of 30+ million and is directly adjacent. The terrain is flat, with pretty good infrastructure. Ukraine views it as an integral part of its nation, and Crimea is considered strategically and politically vital. They are probably willing to sustain a costly and expensive counter-insurgency if a resistance movement arises, and if it becomes too successful will be willing to expel ethnic Russians over losing Crimea.
None of these things bode well for a pro-Russian insurgency. There is no path to victory here.
Looking at history, having no path to victory haven’t exactly deterred insurgencies in the past. But yes, existence of Russia is a big deal. They have some place to go, unlike, say, Koreans under Japanese rule, who had no place to go.
Those who wanted to be part of the Republic of Ireland could have done that, and those who wanted Northern Ireland to be part of the United Kingdom could have gone to Great Britain. But who will emigrate for someone else’s convenience? These are not squabbling children that the adults in the room just want to shut up, justice and their own desires be damned. The reason that there is a Northern Ireland situation is that a substantial proportion of the population wants union with the Republic and a substantial proportion wants union with Britain. This has been true ever since the Irish failed to winkle the British out of the north in their war of independence, and while the proportions have changed somewhat over the last century, it remains true today. There is no solution to such a situation, only a more or less uneasy truce, an agreement to disagree. Whether rule comes from Dublin or Westminster, the government will be viewed as an occupying power by a large part of the population.
Rather like the situation in the Crimea and the eastern provinces. There are substantial numbers of both Ukrainians and Russians in these places. If a border agreed to by both countries eventually gets drawn, it will not solve the conflict no matter where it is drawn. At most it will stop the fighting for long enough for everyone to rebuild for the next war.
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.”
Ukraine is essentially broke and can’t pay for anything without the West giving money for it. That was the case before the war. Back in 2014, Ukraine needed to either pledge certain economic reforms to get IMF funds, accept Russian money, or become bankrupt.
While expelling ethnic Russians from Crimea is a form of ethnic cleansing that’s not as bad as genocide, it’s still bad enough that it’s very likely that the West likely will object to Ukraine doing ethnic cleansing.
After this war is over Ukraine it’s economy is severely weakened in contrast to pre-2022, they are likely going to want to invest money into rebuilding.
With tight budgets in the United States and Europe, the willingness of the United States and Europe to sufficiently fund an effort toward rebuilding already seems unclear. Ukraine would be able to do little to prevent human rights activists and journalists to operate in Crimea and document any misdeeds they do toward the Russian population. Those unwilling to make a place in the budget to give more economic aid to Crimea will be happy to talk about that as a way to justify not giving Crimea economic help.
I don’t see a potential insurgency as being significant. Crimea has a population of 2.2 million, which will probably drop below 2 million if the Ukrainians ever retake it due to the exodus of the pro-Russian population. Ukraine itself has a population of 30+ million and is directly adjacent. The terrain is flat, with pretty good infrastructure. Ukraine views it as an integral part of its nation, and Crimea is considered strategically and politically vital. They are probably willing to sustain a costly and expensive counter-insurgency if a resistance movement arises, and if it becomes too successful will be willing to expel ethnic Russians over losing Crimea.
None of these things bode well for a pro-Russian insurgency. There is no path to victory here.
Looking at history, having no path to victory haven’t exactly deterred insurgencies in the past. But yes, existence of Russia is a big deal. They have some place to go, unlike, say, Koreans under Japanese rule, who had no place to go.
The North Irish could have gone to Ireland, that didn’t stop them from bombing British targets for decades.
Those who wanted to be part of the Republic of Ireland could have done that, and those who wanted Northern Ireland to be part of the United Kingdom could have gone to Great Britain. But who will emigrate for someone else’s convenience? These are not squabbling children that the adults in the room just want to shut up, justice and their own desires be damned. The reason that there is a Northern Ireland situation is that a substantial proportion of the population wants union with the Republic and a substantial proportion wants union with Britain. This has been true ever since the Irish failed to winkle the British out of the north in their war of independence, and while the proportions have changed somewhat over the last century, it remains true today. There is no solution to such a situation, only a more or less uneasy truce, an agreement to disagree. Whether rule comes from Dublin or Westminster, the government will be viewed as an occupying power by a large part of the population.
Rather like the situation in the Crimea and the eastern provinces. There are substantial numbers of both Ukrainians and Russians in these places. If a border agreed to by both countries eventually gets drawn, it will not solve the conflict no matter where it is drawn. At most it will stop the fighting for long enough for everyone to rebuild for the next war.
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.
Ukraine is essentially broke and can’t pay for anything without the West giving money for it. That was the case before the war. Back in 2014, Ukraine needed to either pledge certain economic reforms to get IMF funds, accept Russian money, or become bankrupt.
While expelling ethnic Russians from Crimea is a form of ethnic cleansing that’s not as bad as genocide, it’s still bad enough that it’s very likely that the West likely will object to Ukraine doing ethnic cleansing.
After this war is over Ukraine it’s economy is severely weakened in contrast to pre-2022, they are likely going to want to invest money into rebuilding.
With tight budgets in the United States and Europe, the willingness of the United States and Europe to sufficiently fund an effort toward rebuilding already seems unclear. Ukraine would be able to do little to prevent human rights activists and journalists to operate in Crimea and document any misdeeds they do toward the Russian population. Those unwilling to make a place in the budget to give more economic aid to Crimea will be happy to talk about that as a way to justify not giving Crimea economic help.