Posted on 03/05/2014 1:13:39 PM PST by goldstategop
Should there be a western-leaning Ukraine going forward, it will not include Crimea. The U.S. and Western allies should concede this from the start, and perhaps other of Ukraine’s 24 oblasts too. Crimea and its environs have little strategic value to the West, beyond the opportunity of denying them to Russia. But Russia holds all the leverage because they have the most at stake, and are the only ones willing to commit troops on the ground. Let Moscow annex these lands.
Ukraine is better off without Crimea. Critics will no doubt deride this yielding as weak surrender, but it is better viewed as a strategic concession. Ukraine and the West are better off without Crimea, and perhaps other Russian-leaning regions in East Ukraine as well. The Ukrainian interim government should negotiate exact borders – perhaps, say, Crimea and the three other oblasts that lead up to the city of Donetsk – with the goal of retaining the maximum population whose electoral balance tips unquestionably to Europe and NATO-friendly political parties. It is better to have a smaller Ukraine that is a united and confident member of Europe, than the current Ukraine that is an unstable political football between old Cold War foes. What remains to be seen is whether Moscow will attempt to invade, occupy, and annex other pro-Russian regions of East Ukraine as well. For this reason, it is better for Ukraine and its Western allies to get ahead of the situation and negotiate a concession settlement that guarantees a Russian withdrawal from elsewhere in the country.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
“A civilized divorce is better than a bad civil war.”
If this were clearly a civil war, this would probably be true. However, it appears to be more like a thinly disguised foreign invasion to me, in which case, this proposal is appeasement and won’t lead to much good.
East and West Germany.
It always works out so well...
I agree 100% with this assessment.
You left out Czech and Slovak Republics.
The southwestern US can become part of Mexico too, using the same reasoning
it always worked out for the capitalist side and horrible for the socialist side.
bump
As long as what Putin annexes is limited to overwhelmingly Russian areas, he's likely to get away with it. All of Ukraine's active duty forces are 90,000.
Even though our interests are not strong enough here to justify committing our military, there should be serious consequences for Russia.
Clearly we cannot all just get along any longer.
It would be a good deal only if the US could annex Alberta, BC, and the oil-producing areas of Mexico to compensate for that loss.[/semisarc.]
Well, London population seems to be predominantly Muslim. London must go to Pakistan. Right?
The Velvet Divorce produced stability and peace and actually brought the two peoples closer together. Czech and Slovak leaders still pay a first visit to each other’s capitals and they guarantee their nationals in each other’s country enjoy the same rights they do in their home country.
A divorce is not necessarily terrible. What worked nearly a generation ago does not work today and borders are not always sacrosanct. The visions of Ukrainian nationalists and those aligned with Moscow are irreconcilable. Keeping Ukraine together by force means someone will always feel they got the raw end of the deal and such a country will never know true peace. Ukrainian leaders are wedded to an arrangement that does not serve their country’s interests and will always incur the wrath of Moscow.
Its painful letting the Crimea, the Donbass and other parts of the Novorossiya secede but the new rulers in Kiev hold no real sway there and a unified Ukrainian state exists only on paper. Western Ukrainians want a future with the West and they can’t have one if they try to impose their vision for the country on the rest of it by force. This is the only realistic way out of the present crisis and the ultimate settlement should be guaranteed by the US, EU, and Russia.
Czech and Slovak Republics are two different nations formalizing their divorce. What does it have to do with Ukraine? Kosovo would be better comparison: a bunch of foreigners squat on other nation’s lands, than demand independence on the grounds of their majority in the area.
How is this any of our business?
“Keeping Ukraine together by force means someone will always feel they got the raw end of the deal and such a country will never know true peace.”
You could say the same for splitting it by force, which is what I see happening now. We can’t really talk about “civil” anything until masked, armed illegal combatants are not an issue anymore, eh? Haven’t we learned that from Israel?
There are two Ukraines - one closer to Europe and one closer to Moscow.
They are really two separate nations for all practical extents and purposes. That’s why the country is a political football between the West and Russia and its Ukrainians who are paying the price.
Or rather, is there any “good” side? The one who was democratically elected, or the one who is anti Russian?
And the former Yugoslavian nation as well.
Left out too:
North and South Vietnam,
India and Pakistan,
Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina,
Serbia and Kosovo (split by the NATO bombing of 80 days and invasion). 15 years later, American soldiers are still in Kosovo, but no one knows why.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.