Would you support the following HYPOTHETICAL peace treaty for the Russian-Ukrainian War?

[WalterWhite]

TERRITORIAL CHANGES:

1) The entirety of the Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, Luhansk, and Kharkiv Oblasts; and the Autonomous Republic of Crimea will be returned to Ukraine.

2) The entirety of Transnistria will be returned to Moldova.

3) The entirety of Abkhazia and South Ossetia will be returned Georgia.

STATIONING OF TROOPS:

1) Russia will withdraw all government and paramilitary troops from territory recognized by the United Nations as part of Moldova, Ukraine, and Georgia.

2) In total, 10000 Ukrainian and 2500 United Nations troops will be stationed along the border between Russia and Ukraine and along the border between Belarus and Ukraine.

3) 1000 Ukrainian and 250 United Nations troops will be stationed in Kerch, Crimea.

4) 3000 Georgian and 750 United Nations troops will be stationed along the border between Georgia and Ukraine.

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS:

1) Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova will be allowed to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the European Union one year after the signing of this treaty.

HUMANITARIAN AID:

1) All current North Atlantic Treaty members will each give Ukraine $1 billion per year over the span of ten years for the sole purpose of humanitarian aid.

2) The Russian government will give Ukraine $10 billion per year over the span of ten years for the sole purpose of humanitarian aid.

MILITARY AID:

1) The United States shall give Ukraine 50 nuclear bombs and Georgia 25 nuclear bombs.

GOVERNMENT:

1) The heads of government and state of Ukraine, Russia, and Georgia will remain the heads of government and state of Ukraine, Russia, and Georgia until their upcoming elections.

2) Russia will keep its position as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council.

[Hindsight was 2020]

110% the problem is Russia never would unless they are outright beaten.

[WalterWhite]

110% the problem is Russia never would unless they are outright beaten.

Putin is one stubborn SOAB.

[NYDem]

Sure, but I fail to see how this is a serious proposal. Russia loses all of its captured territory in this scenario. Why would they agree to it?

In the event of a large successful counteroffensive at some point in the future, I could see Ukraine maybe gaining back the territories it’s lost since the beginning of the war. Even then I don’t see how they get Crimea back. It’s basically an island. So long as Russia holds it they are never giving it up.

The most optimistic Ukrainian victory scenario I see is Russia keeping Crimea, Ukraine retaining its 2014 borders otherwise, and possible future NATO membership for Ukraine (given it no longer has an ongoing dispute). I don’t see regaining Crimea, any sort of reparations, or any settlement on Georgia or Moldavia as a possibility.

[TheReckoning]

Adding Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova into the EU within a year doesn’t make any sense to anyone who understands the EU.

It can take a decade+ of application work under the best of circumstances, which Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova don’t have.

[pppolitics]

Sure, but I fail to see how this is a serious proposal. Russia loses all of its captured territory in this scenario. Why would they agree to it?

In the event of a large successful counteroffensive at some point in the future, I could see Ukraine maybe gaining back the territories it’s lost since the beginning of the war. Even then I don’t see how they get Crimea back. It’s basically an island. So long as Russia holds it they are never giving it up.

The most optimistic Ukrainian victory scenario I see is Russia keeping Crimea, Ukraine retaining its 2014 borders otherwise, and possible future NATO membership for Ukraine (given it no longer has an ongoing dispute). I don’t see regaining Crimea, any sort of reparations, or any settlement on Georgia or Moldavia as a possibility.

It's even harder for Russia to retain Crimea because it is a peninsula.

The only physical connection Russia has to Crimea is a bridge that is constantly bombed.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Sure, but I fail to see how this is a serious proposal. Russia loses all of its captured territory in this scenario. Why would they agree to it?

In the event of a large successful counteroffensive at some point in the future, I could see Ukraine maybe gaining back the territories it’s lost since the beginning of the war. Even then I don’t see how they get Crimea back. It’s basically an island. So long as Russia holds it they are never giving it up.

The most optimistic Ukrainian victory scenario I see is Russia keeping Crimea, Ukraine retaining its 2014 borders otherwise, and possible future NATO membership for Ukraine (given it no longer has an ongoing dispute). I don’t see regaining Crimea, any sort of reparations, or any settlement on Georgia or Moldavia as a possibility.

If Ukraine gets to the sea they can completely blow up the bridges and completely isolate the area

[Independents for Nihilism]

You had me til you started talking about passing nukes around. I don't want a Ukrainian Missile Crisis any time soon, even if the rest of the proposal makes sense (aside that Russia would never agree to it in a million years). I also doubt that the nations mentioned would be able to join the EU during the humanitarian aid period.

[dead0man]

yeah, I'm one of the more "pro-nuke" people around and I don't think it's a good idea to give Ukraine and Georgia their own nukes.  Otherwise I would be fine with this compromise.  If Ukraine gets it's territory back and are allowed to join NATO, I don't give a sh**t who is in charge of the dying nation that is Russia.

[NYDem]

You had me til you started talking about passing nukes around. I don't want a Ukrainian Missile Crisis any time soon, even if the rest of the proposal makes sense (aside that Russia would never agree to it in a million years). I also doubt that the nations mentioned would be able to join the EU during the humanitarian aid period.

Somehow I skipped over that part lmao.

Under no circumstances are we "giving nukes" to war-torn countries, let alone Georgia.

[Frodo]

I am not going to give nuclear bombs to anyone.  Allowing any country other than the established great powers access to nuclear weapons is a non-starter whatever the merits of the rest of the treaty you are proposing.  I suggest rather bringing Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, and therefore under the American nuclear umbrella would be more than enough on its own to deter Russian revanchism.  

[Lord Halifax]

I am not going to give nuclear bombs to anyone.  Allowing any country other than the established great powers access to nuclear weapons is a non-starter whatever the merits of the rest of the treaty you are proposing.  I suggest rather bringing Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, and therefore under the American nuclear umbrella would be more than enough on its own to deter Russian revanchism.  

you could argue that Ukraine as the second largest republic with a big part of the Soviet nukes stationed on its territory had as much right to inherit the Soviet Union's nuclear arsenal as the Russian Federation, so you would be remedying a historical injustice which has had very negative consequences.

nuclear proliferation is basically inevitable at this point, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea got nukes post-NPT and Iran will soon have them. There's an imbalance in non-Russian Europe where the two only nuclear powers are located in the far west of the continent which means they have less direct interest in stopping Russian expansion than if Poland or Ukraine were nuclear powers.

regarding the rest of the peace plan I think that Montenegro and Iceland paying as much to the rebuilding of Ukraine as Germany might be just a tad unfair. A billion dollars is 10% of Iceland or Estonia's annual state budget and apparently Montenegro's annual government spending is around a billion dollars, so you'd completely bankrupt them.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Putin would rather fight to the death than have Ukraine have 50 of its own nukes pointed at Moscow.

[Lord Halifax]

Putin would rather fight to the death than have Ukraine have 50 of its own nukes pointed at Moscow.

sure, which is why giving nukes to Poland, which would be a more reliable guarantor of Ukraine's sovereignty than the UK and France, may be a more realistic option. I was mostly arguing against the non-proliferation argument, since that ship has sailed (nuclear proliferation is going to happen whether we like it or not) and Ukraine has a better claim to being a nuclear power than nearly all other current non-nuclear powers.

[Meclazine for Israel]

At this stage, I would support any peace treaty for the region.

It's an atrocious waste of human endeavour.

[CumbrianLefty]

I don’t see regaining Crimea, any sort of reparations, or any settlement on Georgia or Moldavia as a possibility.

Disagree somewhat on Moldova (note the spelling)

There is always the possibility they finally decide to join up with Romania as well.

[Lord Halifax]

At this stage, I would support any peace treaty for the region.

It's an atrocious waste of human endeavour.

the existence of Russia is an atrocious waste of human endeavour

[Conservatopia]

No it doesn't go far enough. If Ukraine/the west wins outright then Russia needs to be completely removed as a threat. Russia as an entity should be abolished and the area balkanized between different groups and with significant territorial concessions to Finland, the Baltic, Ukraine etc. Demilitarized zone stretching the length of the full western border. Execution of all senior Russian government officials, ideally publicly.

It needs to be like WW2's aftermath although the Russian people must be crushed more than Germany was as they cannot be trusted like Germany was. Russia has been a malevolent force for its entire existence, this is the opportunity to set things straight with this barbarian race.

[CumbrianLefty]

Disagree with all this "vengeance on Russia" stuff.

If they are eventually badly defeated in this war (and that is far from a given, it has to be said) they should be given the chance to join the civilised family of nations just as the Germans and Japanese were after WW2. Nations, just as with individuals, need carrots as well as sticks.

[Lord Halifax]

No it doesn't go far enough. If Ukraine/the west wins outright then Russia needs to be completely removed as a threat. Russia as an entity should be abolished and the area balkanized between different groups and with significant territorial concessions to Finland, the Baltic, Ukraine etc. Demilitarized zone stretching the length of the full western border. Execution of all senior Russian government officials, ideally publicly.

It needs to be like WW2's aftermath although the Russian people must be crushed more than Germany was as they cannot be trusted like Germany was. Russia has been a malevolent force for its entire existence, this is the opportunity to set things straight with this barbarian race.

I sense a hint of irony, but it's actually not that far off what would be required if we were to permanently eliminate Russia as a threat. In the highly unlikely event that the West should be in a position to carve up the Russian Federation I would focus more on getting the thinly populated parts (Siberia, the Far East and the Arctic) under some form of Western control rather than carving up the populous parts of European Russia, that's where the natural resources are and European Russia without it would be manageable.

[dead0man]

Disagree with all this "vengeance on Russia" stuff.

If they are eventually badly defeated in this war (and that is far from a given, it has to be said) they should be given the chance to join the civilised family of nations just as the Germans and Japanese were after WW2. Nations, just as with individuals, need carrots as well as sticks.

seems like we tried this once with Russia already and it didn't take.  I'm sure different people will have different opinions as to why that is, but my theory is that they were never properly beaten in a war.  Unlike Germany and Japan.

[Lord Halifax]

Disagree with all this "vengeance on Russia" stuff.

it's not a matter of vengeance, but of neutralizing a threat by making Russia too weak to attack anyone. If the German state had been dissolved into its pre-1860 parts after WW1 along with the dissolution of Prussia into 4-5 smaller states it wouldn't have been possible to create the Third Reich and WW2 would not have happened. The democratization of Japan and West Germany after WW2 happened during circumstances that are hard to replicate and can't really be used as a model for how to deal with Russia.

[PSOL]

Abkhazia and South Ossetia should be independent nations without Russian troops within the vicinity of their borders

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Strange hypothetical. Why 25 nuclear bombs, specifically?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Disagree with all this "vengeance on Russia" stuff.

If they are eventually badly defeated in this war (and that is far from a given, it has to be said) they should be given the chance to join the civilised family of nations just as the Germans and Japanese were after WW2. Nations, just as with individuals, need carrots as well as sticks.

seems like we tried this once with Russia already and it didn't take.  I'm sure different people will have different opinions as to why that is, but my theory is that they were never properly beaten in a war.  Unlike Germany and Japan.

Under drunk Yeltsin, Russians had shrinking economy, high inflation, and shortened lifespans.