The future of Ukraine concerns mainly the Ukrainian citizens (who must be asked)
“The future of Ukraine cannot be decided without the Ukrainians themselves.”
That was a statement made by the French president Macron, possibly implying that Ukrainian citizens should participate in whatever decisions are taken. He said this ahead of the planned meeting between the President of the United States and his Russian counterpart in Alaska.
That meeting was said to have “gone well” — without, however, producing the slightest positive result.
In contrast, Russia significantly increased its attacks on Ukrainian cities with hundreds of civilian victims.
But I hoped and expected at least two points to be comprised:
A) That Ukraine will never become a NATO member.
B) That the future of the disputed territories will depend on the will of the majority of citizens who live (or lived before the war) permanently in those territories.
Because I saw nothing from the (draft) plan to suggest that either will be addressed, I turned to AI and found the following suggestions, contained in next chapter
… …
…
Analysis of the conflict in Ukraine and related suggestions from AI
Question: What is the best and fairest solution for ending the Russia Ukraine war?
Answer:
“Unilateral “referendums” (under occupation) are legally and politically weak. More realistic is a transitional regime under international supervision…”
“The idea of asking Ukraine to cede territory under pressure presents legal and moral problems…”
“Administer the occupied areas under international supervision, with scheduled elections / self determination, when international standards are met.”
Priority must be:
– respect for Ukraine’s territorial integrity
– security guarantees
– justice & reparations
– international supervision for any administrative changes
…
The above answer stresses “self determination,” implying residents may choose which country they want to belong to. Nevertheless, the notion of “free referendum” is still missing.
… …
…
Some logical (even self-evident) considerations
1) International Law prohibits violence between states.
2) Even more explicitly, it prohibits changing borders through war.
3) Deciding on and recognizing a border change (such as the annexation of regions of Ukraine by Russia) in the absence of the citizens who inhabit these regions, in addition to being extremely undemocratic and unjust, ultimately ends up being “counterproductive”, in the sense that it does not solve any problems.
And it does not solve any problem, since any ethnic differences among the residents will continue to exist and be a cause for constant friction, violent incidents and general insecurity.
And this will happen, because anyone from the existing different ethnic groups may feel like a “victim of injustice” and will consider itself to have the “right” to resort to violence to “restore justice.”
4) If, on the contrary, citizens are asked and freely express their opinion, minority ethnic groups will end up feeling like they have no choice but to adapt and finally decide to coexist peacefully with their fellow citizens of other nationalities, which is the best thing that could happen in similar cases.
5) Perhaps the most important benefit of resorting to a referendum will be that it frees all involved parts from the “stigma” of retreat, appeasement, and (unallowable for any leader) abandonment of national interests.
6) A referendum, however, requires:
– Ceasefire
– International administration in occupied areas
– UN supervision
– Participation of all displaced former residents
… …
…
Analysis of the attitude of the various leaders so far
It causes deep sadness and despair that the situation has led to what we all know, with the responsibility of all those involved.
And it is natural to wonder why the logical and self-evident recourse to the popular verdict was not the pursuit of those who (supposedly) wanted a radical and just solution to Ukraine’s ethnic problems even before the war began.
Even more so, now that we are at war for 4 years with hundreds of thousands of victims and without any indication that the differences between both sides can be bridged so that there can finally be peace.
So let’s see what these differences are:
A) Russian President Putin does not want to resort to the popular verdict for two main reasons:
A1) First, it would prove that the “referendums” he had organized in the areas he had occupied were completely illegitimate and invalid as products of extreme violence and blackmail.
A2) Secondly, I reasonably assume that even several citizens who feel and declare themselves Russians, will prefer to remain in Ukraine instead of Russia, which is ruled by this particular cruel, inhumane, lying, corrupt, ruthless and dangerous (for everyone) dictator.
So, he prefers not to risk free referendums, since he believes that he will ultimately get what he wants by the force of arms.
B) The hitherto unyielding attitude of Ukrainian President Zelensky, with the ridiculous argument that “the country’s Constitution does not allow for the transfer of national sovereignty,” had not contributed in the least to any solution.
Of course, the Constitution of each country must be respected. However, every constitution is supposed to serve the needs of a country and its citizens. In this sense, it can be changed, as is provided from the Constitution itself.
Specifically, the Ukrainian constitution itself provides for the possibility of amending it only by a relevant decision of parliament.
C) U.S. president Trump’s efforts had been so far at least honorable and even commendable.
However, with what is being leaked about the content of the draft, that positive image is spoiled, because in practice almost all of Putin’s demands are met.
Thus, after the rejection of his plan by European leaders, he remains embarrassed.
The only thing that is certain is that he wants to “end the war” at any cost, as long as he and his country have some benefits (which we all know more or less).
D) Zelensky’s meetings with Trump and other European leaders and officials so far have concluded as follows:
“There must be a guarantee for the security and integrity of Ukraine after the end of the war and (any) agreement between Ukraine and Russia.”
However, the following key questions are left unanswered here:
D1) How and under what conditions will the war be sought to end?
D2) Which Ukraine (whose integrity will be protected) are we talking about?
-The one that is still controlled by the Ukrainian government?
-The one that was controlled by the Ukrainian government before the violent interventions – attacks and annexations and is now controlled by Russia?
Since, in order to “protect” the integrity of a country, one must first have cleared and liberated all its areas that are currently under foreign occupation.
… …
…
Epilogue: Do we have something similar to the “egg of Columbus”?
The situation in Ukraine remains tragic, while hopes for a fair settlement – resolution, which will leave all sides satisfied, seem non-existent, based on all existing data.
The only (false) “way out” seems to be a capitulation of Ukraine, which, however, is not fair at all.
On the contrary, in fact it will constitute a terrible and saddest defeat of the rules of peaceful coexistence of two neighboring states, but also of International Law itself.
Moreover, it would constitute (another) “bad precedent”, in what it concerns international legitimacy and the future of Europe.
However, the proposed solution of resorting to the popular verdict of the Ukrainian citizens constitutes indeed an escape from the impasse, which, in addition to being fair, democratic and effective, has the property of being extremely simple:
Thus, we can parallel it with the well-known story of the “Columbus egg”, which only the famous navigator was able to keep upright by breaking it at one end.
So, it seems that, under the conditions that have been created, “some eggs will finally have to be broken” in order to have the prospect of a fair solution, which is certainly the “not the worst” thing in the case of Ukraine.
Facebook Comments