Stop making the Donbas territory a zero-sum confrontation
History tells us there are a wide range of solutions that transcend 'one side gets to have it, precisely so the other side can’t' (in Responsible Statecraft)
“[…]Ukraine considers conceding territory bitter, humiliating, and painful. Understandably so: giving up even more, after the country has lost so much and so many in defending itself, is intolerable. Russia seems grimly determined to gain the territory, if need be militarily, its recent progress on the battlefield making this threat all too credible.
In this conundrum, the inhabitants of this sliver of the Donbas are offered only two futures, both of them devastating. One, they will be handed to Russian occupation, with no say in the matter. If they don’t like it, they can leave behind their property, livelihood, the graves of their loved ones and become refugees. Two, their home will be pulverized as it turns into the next urban battleground and if they are lucky enough to survive, they will still come under Russian occupation.
Is this really the best peace-making we can muster? In any peace process and this one, too, territory need not be a zero-sum issue. Land, and the communities and infrastructure on it, lend themselves to a wide range of solutions that transcend “one side gets to have it, precisely so the other side can’t” and deliver a sturdier peace. As it happens, point 21 already contains language indicating a more promising direction: the “withdrawal zone will be considered a neutral demilitarized buffer zone.” Therein lies the beginnings of a way out of this impasse.[…]”
Read the full article at Responsible Statecraft. If some of it sounds familiar, that’s because you have read it here first.
“withdrawal zone will be considered a neutral demilitarized buffer zone”. As in the Gaza Strip: a buffer zone between the Israelis and the Palestinians: a disaster waiting to happen. As in the south of Lebanon: a buffer zone between the Israeli border and the Litani river, with Palestinian homes razed to the ground. In Ukraine, a buffer zone between one war and the next.
No, history doesn’t tell you that at all. History tells you that territorial conquest has been inadmissible since WW2 and rejected consistently by the international community. History tells you there are zero cases of UN members being forced to cede territory to conquest by other UN members and having that recognised by anyone other than a couple of rogue states. Zero. Pre-1939 history is irrelevant. I recommend learning from people who have studied history. And the Donbas “insurgency” has been shown comprehensively to be the work of the Russian state.
https://theconversation.com/since-wwii-its-been-taboo-to-force-nations-to-cede-land-after-war-russia-wants-to-normalise-conquest-again-264590