A real Russia-Ukraine peace proposal

Too hot for Counterpunch!!! (And for Antiwar.com)

To be honest, I don’t know why one or more of Jeff St. Clair, Joshua Frank and Patrick Cockburn (assuming that some “screener” didn’t make the call) took a pass on the original, shorter form of this piece. They’ve also passed on my Cactus Ed Abbey snark. At the same time, I know I can do better in verse than Counterpunch’s poet laureate, Eliot Sperber, so claiming that this is “too hot for Counterpunch” works for me.

Where this started?

About a week or so ago on Twitter, I don't know if David Rieff is totally in the US-NATO-Ukraine tank, but he issued a callout on Twitter to Trita Parsi of the Quincy Institute to propose an actual agreement — after saying he didn't like Lula's. I do know David is a duopolist on national US politics.) I do think that retweeting stories like this Bulwark one from Cathy Young show he aims for some nuance on Bandera et al, but a nuance that may dodge issues like the current Azov Battalion, etc.

That said, none of this applies to Rieff only. It applies to conventional liberals in general, neoconservatives, and any others except those cutting blank checks to authoritarianism in Russia.

A few more notes before we jump in with the meat of the plan? 

First? I know I’m in good company in other ways Per Thomas Knapp of “classical” L/libertarian bent (that link is at Counterpunch!!!), or the likes of Norman Finkelstein on the left, I don't have to, and don't worry about, calling Russia's invasion "unjustified" or "unprovoked," because those disclaimers aren't true. And, beyond the disclaimers not being true, and therefore not necessary, I in general reject the idea of "just war." It strikes me as a philosophical or theological attempt to put lipstick on a pig, perhaps while also trying to claim some sort of backdoor moral superiority. Based on how just war theory has often been used, to continue the metaphor, it’s putting lipstick on the “might makes right” pig.

Second, as with any peace plan, proposals are never actually written in stone. So, these are talking points.

With that said, here goes. 

Russia of course keeps Crimea under my proposal. It wasn't in the Ukrainian SSR until the Ukrainian pig farmer put it there, first. And, in old Tsarist Russia, administrative districts, other than Poland after the former Grand Duchy was gobbled up, weren't based on ethno-linguistic lines. (Finland remained technically separate until the implosion of Tsardom.) A map of Tsarist Russia shows that, as I blogged here. (And, before the expansion of Tsarist Russia, Ukraine had not existed for centuries before Ivan the Terrible anyway.) Besides, Crimea has, by language, Russians, Ukrainians, Tatars, Greeks and all others. Educated liberals, conservatives, above all the people all call Nat-Sec Nutsacks, you know this, too.

If people object, then I in turn reject any peace ideas you have. I said this was a realistic peace proposal. I did NOT say it was a “realistic after US-NATO-Ukrainian axis (sic) vetting” peace proposal.

See also pieces by me here and here for entangled Russian and Ukrainian nationalisms, on the pre-1918, let alone pre-1991 or pre-2014 background.

Second, I'll bite the bullet on post-2014 and current issues.

Since, per what I said above, since the ethno-linguistic boundaries support it, and since Zelensky AND predecessors in Ukraine broke the Minsk Accords (as did Putin), Donetsk and Luhansk go to Russia.

Don't give me the "I’m rewarding aggression" angle. Bill Clinton's "capitalist aggression" against Boris Yeltsin's Russia, spearheaded by Jeffrey Sachs, is part of why we are where we're at today.

As for why these areas, or the larger "left-bank Ukraine" were part of the Ukrainian SSR even before the pig farmer? Blame his predecessor, the Georgian seminarian cum Lenin's Commissar of Nationalities, Joe Stalin. That link also gives a first bite from me on the Minsk Accords; this piece has more.

Third, post-invasion annexations, beyond Donetsk and Luhansk, revert to Ukraine, as well as any unannexed but Russian-conquered land.

Ukraine is responsible for the costs of mine cleanup in these lands. There is otherwise in general no reparations to be paid by Russia.

Fourth, which I didn't even think of originally, showing how stupid, and even more, how hypocritical I think it is? The ICC warrant for Putin's arrest gets tossed. (Or, one gets issued against multiple US presidents, even if the US isn't an ICC signatory, which gets back to that hypocrisy issue.)

Fifth, the "security guarantees" issue.

This is a multi-parter:

First, NATO guarantees that, beyond countries bordering Russia who are already members, NATO membership will never be extended to another bordering nation. In other words, Georgia as well as Ukraine are out the window. Period. And, Kazakhstan, or whatever, in case NATO gets a really wild idea about ignoring geography.

Second, strategic nuclear weapons will not be stationed in any country bordering Russia. (We can fudge on what counts as "strategic" and set aside for now tactical nukes, but my preference is to define "strategic" pretty broadly.)

Third, all post-Crimea sanctions against Russia are raised, with Russia accepting a "hold harmless" against US, EU, NATO etc for any economic damage.

Fourth? I am NOT proposing a DMZ for either Russia or Ukraine on a 50km or whatever setback from the new boundaries. Too hard to enforce. Too sticky of flypaper. Zelensky would try to use it as exactly that.

Now, as Rieff and others know, Zelensky, NATO, the US and Western Nat-Sec Nutsacks would never accept a proposal such as this. It IS "realistic" re the actual situation on the ground and on the globe, though, outside the US-NATO-Ukraine axis. And, that's the whole point.

So, I'll throw in a fifth, to let the West save face and to remove a thorn. 

Russia surrenders the Kaliningrad Oblast. It goes to Poland. Putin would still accept that, I'm pretty sure, given everything else.