Calling David Rieff's, others, bluff on Russia-Ukraine peace plans

I don't know if 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.

Two more notes before we jump in? 

First? Per Thomas Knapp — and others — 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.

Second, as with any peace plan, proposals are never actually written in stone.

With that said, here goes. 

Russia of course keeps Crimea. 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. 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. David, you know this, too. If you object, then I in turn reject any peace ideas you have. See also pieces by me here and here for entangled Russian and Ukrainian nationalisms.

Second, I'll bite the bullet. 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 "reward 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.

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 knows, Zelensky, NATO, the US and Western Nat-Sec Nutsacks would never accept that. 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.

And, yes, I stand by the "bluff" in the header.

I don't think it's likely Rieff wants anything other than the status quo ante with continuing sanctions until Russia "releases" Crimea. (Putin has previously said part of the reason for its seizure was fears of the Maidan providing a "wedge" for a NATO invasion.) If I'm wrong, David, I'm here.