Cogitation in the Time of War #23 - About the latest round of talks in Turkey

Before I write my long dissertation about the (more than) 1 month of Putin's Invasion of Ukraine (I will do it today, that is a promise that I won't break... Maybe... I hope I won't...) let me write a few paragraphs about the recent peace talks in Istanbul between Ukraine and Russia. This is mostly an expanded version of what I wrote yesterday on Twitter and based on a thread from Anastasiia Lapatina (an ukrainian journalists currently in Lviv, if I'm not mistaken) highlighting the main points from the Ukrainian perspective.

As a disclaimer I haven't seen any further news today, so take that into consideration if you see me saying something that doesn't match latest reports.

So yesterday's round of negotiations seems to have brought a genuine progress and that makes every sense to me, since Russia is no longer in a position to simply dictate terms and are now willing to be more flexible. So what do I think about this? Let's go through what I believe are the main points:

Regarding Ukraine accepting neutrality and not joining NATO that is perfectly fine and is the ideal scenario. It does not mean Ukraine won't have protection since a country doesn't need to be a NATO member to have security treaties with other countries that are. And take the example of Finland, not a NATO member (at least not yet) but their military is perfectly integrated with NATO, even more so that the more recent Alliance members that still use equipment from the Soviet-era. What is really surprising, to me at least, is that Russia seems to have no quarrel with Ukraine joining the EU. I had mention before that Putin also didn't want that but to prevent a military alliance with the so called West, he needs to allow for a social-economical turn to the West. I guess this is a compromisein exchange for Crimea.

Very sensible ideas in regards to Crimea and Donbas, in the sense there's no decision but they will continue to discuss in more detail the Crimea status and leave the Donbas for a future meeting between Zelenskyy and Putin. Why the different takes? Because the 2 regions are not in the same situation: Crimea is fully annexed but Donbas is still in dispute. But by accepting to discuss more about Donbas in the future shows that Ukraine is not intransigent about the region's future and that to me is great. I previously mentioned in a comment on Facebook (on a post of my own so I should be able to find it again) that there are 4 sides to this conflict, each with their own unique needs: Ukraine, Russia, Crimea and Donbas. But clearly something needs to be done for these 2 regions after Russia is out of Ukraine and the war has ended; and has one would expect, I have my own expanded thoughts about that something:

1. Russia won't accept losing Sevastopol very easy. I believe it's their only warm deepwater naval base so it's a crucial one for the Black Sea Fleet and even the entire Russian Navy. Yes, it was leased from Ukraine a while back (and renewed not to long ago) but we have to remember that Russia preferred to invade and then start a war than to build a new base elsewhere and move out of Sevastopol. So in my opinion there is a very low chance that Crimea returns to Ukraine as that means Russia must leave (one aspect of the neutrality, from the paragraph above, is that Ukraine has no foreign military bases in their territory).
2. Still the people should and must be heard in regards to their own future. How can this be done now after 8 years of occupation and displacement of residents? Surely a new referendum done in the near future, even with international observers, would still result in a pro-Russia outcome. Most of the pro-Ukraine and the Tartar population from before 2014 has moved away from Crimea and new people from Russia moved in. I'm convinced that the population now is much more pro-Russia than it was 8 years ago.
   
3. The same is not true for the Donbas since the separatists never controlled the full region; I believe that in the Donbas there's a true division, at most 50-50. But I still think that conducting a referendum in the short term, considering that many citizens received a Russian passport and like in Crimea people from Russia moved in, will be flawed and controversial (most likely filled with accusations from both sides that people from other regions, both within Ukraine and within Russia, are showing up to vote, much like what happened in 2014). 
   
4. So what options are there? If I had a say in this, that I don't cause I'm nobody, I would recommend a UN force to go into Crimea and Donbas as a true peacekeeping international force. It can contains elements from NATO countries but it cannot be a NATO force (like KFOR). I haven't checked the details of the NATO mission in Kosovo, but the goals of the UN mission would be similar: to bring peace and stability to the Donbas and Crimea and have a 3rd-party controlling all the intervenients. After the force is in place, and in control of the situation, there would be a lengthy period of investigation, involving everyone and also a big team of international observers, also with its own UN mandate, to find where the original (pre-2014) habitants of the 2 regions (still alive of course) currently are. These habitants should be given the choice to vote in an upcoming referendum (regardless if they are returning or not, as that would depend on the outcome of it). This referendum to be done in Crimea and Donbas, needs to be closely monitored by international observers (OECD for example, also with another UN mandate) and conducted still under the control of the UN peacekeeping force (to prevent possible interference from any party). To me the referendum must have 4 options: a) return to Ukraine as pre-2014; b) be part of Ukraine as an autonomous region; c) independence; d) join the Russian Federation as a republic. And that referendum would decide the future of those 2 regions although another transition period would be necessary., to implement and strengthen public institutions, new or old, and allow a new migration of population that doesn't want to be part of this new future in the regions.
   After some years the UN mission would be complete and the peacekeeping force would leave. That can take several years though, as one can simply look into KFOR that is still in Kosovo since 1999.

Just wanted to add a comment about the surprise appearance of Roman Abramovich during this round of negotiations. It had been reported that he was poisoned earlier this month, during previous peace talks, and now we can confirm his involvement. Nevertheless the recent news about that supposed poisoning is weird since at one point one advisor from president Zelenskyy said nothing happened and all delegation members were fine and working. The news also mentioned these talks occurred in Kyiv but the sessions were happening in Belarus. Ever since I read this story and went to try and get more details on it that i find this all very strange. I think I'll have to  investigate more thoroughly for a future cogitation.