Do you remember the ‘peace plan’ presented by Elon Musk in October? Well, the plan consisted of the following:
– Redo elections of annexed regions under UN supervision. Russia leaves if that is the will of the people.– Crimea formally part of Russia, as it has been since 1783 (until Khrushchev’s mistake).
– Water supply to Crimea assured.
– Ukraine remains neutral.
“This is highly likely to be the outcome in the end – just a question of how many die before then” added Musk. Back then, this was taken as one of the usual eccentric statements by the billionaire-troll and everything was forgotten rather quickly, however, forgotten in vain.
In reality, Musk is not the only nor first public figure who promotes the idea of Ukraine’s territorial “concessions” to the aggressor in exchange for peace. Yes, back in September of 2022, the Cato Institute – the American libertarian think tank, blew up with its article called “Leave Crimea Alone” with the justification that “In defending itself, Kiev should exhibit the democratic values ascribed to it by the West. That includes consideration for former citizens who might not want to return to its forced embrace” – writes the author Doug Bandow. His demagogy served the purpose of solidifying the perception that the status of Crimea must be decided by another referendum, under the scope of international institutions. The essence here is evidently not about libertarian fundamentalism. In this context, a referendum would be a means of legalizing the annexation.
Not so long ago, on the 28th of February 2023, an opinion piece by Fareed Zakharia appeared on CNN’s website. The American journalist and commentator states that “it has become clear that neither side is strong enough to win the war nor weak enough to sue for peace”. He also states that the West must provide more money and weapons in the short term, however, a total Ukrainian victory is unlikely. Emphasizing the scale of ruin that the war has brought for our country, Zakharia proposed the following:
“It’s possible to imagine a cease-fire that returns all lands captured since February 2022 to Ukraine. Those taken earlier, like Crimea in 2014, would be subject to international arbitration, including local referendums that would be conducted by international groups, not the Russian government. In addition, Ukraine would get security guarantees from NATO, though they would not apply to those disputed territories. That tradeoff – to put it simply, Crimea and parts of the Donbas for de facto NATO and EU membership – is one that could be sold to Ukrainians because they would achieve their long-cherished goal of becoming part of the West. It could be acceptable to Russia because it could claim to have protected some Russian-speaking parts of Ukraine.”
Let’s not ignore the fact that Ukrainian society is strongly against any kind of concessions. Selling the idea of such a “peace plan” is currently impossible. However, talks of territorial concessions in exchange for peace have entered a slightly newer phase. The fact that Elon Musk is known by everyone but Fareed Zakharia being known by a smaller circle of international observers, must not trick us. Zakharia is a “heavy-weight” when it comes to American political science, who represents the views of a certain part of Western establishment.
Another important detail here is that it is impossible to blame Zakharia for sympathy for Putin, as Zakharia clearly holds a staunch pro-Ukrainian standpoint. So staunch that by presidential decree, on the 23rd of August 2022, he was awarded with the “For Merit” of the III order. The problem is that such formulas aiming to ‘rescue’ Ukraine, can hardly ever be considered as such.
Before Russia’s full-scale invasion, the world actively discussed the idea of the “Finlandization” of Ukraine, the abandonment of sovereign territory in order to preserve statehood. After Putin’s blitzkrieg failed and Ukraine’s military demonstrated its ability to regain control of lost territories, ‘selling’ the idea of “Finlandization” to Ukrainians became a lot more difficult. Now, a new proposal has risen – the idea of conceding territories in exchange for statehood AND sovereignty. In order to mask the fact that this is another banal concession to the aggressor, the formula has a brand new appearance of “referenda under international supervision”.
For certain interest groups in the West, referenda on “contested” territories in Ukraine, would be an ideal solution which would legitimize Russia’s invasion and occupation and actualize it on the level with international law. This would be a colossal strategic mistake – such an obvious one that one does not even need to write about it. Does Fareed Zakharia understand what kind of message this would send to other aggressive regimes around the world?
Yes, there is a likelihood that at a certain moment, Ukraine lacks the power to liberate certain areas such as Donetsk. Nevertheless, all of us believe that this dramatic moment in history will take place. If it does happen, then the legitimized annexation of these territories will serve absolutely nothing. Are we really willing to believe that Moscow, upon receiving “gifts”, will not start to prepare for a new phase of “gathering Russian lands”? Of course, NATO membership will give us certain security guarantees, however, the Alliance has already shown us that it does not wish direct collision with Russia.
Purely theoretically, a referendum can also be seen as a bloodless way to return Ukrainian territory, however, in practice this would not work. The reason for this is that Russian terror led to the exodus of many pro-Ukrainian citizens. Many have fled the frontline zones, due to safety and economic reasons. In their place, an unknown number of Russians have arrived – as they did in Crimea and Donbas. Will their vote be taken into account too? Who will actually vote in Mariupol, Lysychansk and Bakhmut? Will the information space still be dominated by Russian propaganda? There are many other relevant questions here, and no one has an exact answer to them – including Mr. Zakharia.
One way or another, this development of Western political thought must be closely examined so that it does not catch us by surprise in the future.
