The Minsk II Agreement promised free and fair elections to the Donbas. It was never fully implemented. As far as Crimea is concerned, there was a plebiscite held in Crimea after the annexation in 2014.
The Crimean status referendum of 2014 was a disputed referendum concerning the status of Crimea, held on March 16, 2014 in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the local government of Sevastopol (both subdivisions of Ukraine).
The referendum was approved and held amidst Russia's annexation of Crimea. The referendum asked local populations whether they wanted to rejoin Russia as a federal subject, or if they wanted to restore the 1992 Crimean constitution and Crimea's status as a part of Ukraine.
The official result from the Autonomous Republic of Crimea was a 97 percent vote for integration of the region into the Russian Federation with an 83 percent voter turnout, and within the local government of Sevastopol there was also a 97 percent vote for integration into Russia with an 89 percent voter turnout.
The March 16 referendum's available choices did not include keeping the status quo of Crimea and Sevastopol as they were at the moment the referendum was held. The 1992 constitution accords greater powers to the Crimean parliament, including full sovereign powers to establish relations with other states; therefore, many Western and Ukrainian commentators argued that both provided referendum choices would result in de facto separation from Ukraine. The final date and ballot choices were set only ten days before the plebiscite was held. Before, during and after the plebiscite was proclaimed, the Crimean peninsula was host to Russian soldiers to manage and oversee public buildings and Ukrainian military installations.
Following the referendum, the State Council of Crimea and Sevastopol City Council declared the independence of the Republic of Crimea from Ukraine and requested to join the Russian Federation. On the same day, Russia recognized the Republic of Crimea as a sovereign state.
The referendum is not recognized by most countries, mainly due to the presence of Russian forces. Thirteen members of the United Nations Security Council voted in favor of a resolution declaring the referendum invalid, but Russia vetoed it and China abstained. A United Nations General Assembly resolution was later adopted, by a vote of 100 in favor vs. 11 against with 58 abstentions, which declared the referendum invalid and affirmed Ukraine's territorial integrity. As the plebiscite was proclaimed, the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People called for a boycott of the referendum.
And winning means, Ukraine and Russia agree to abide by the result of these free and fair referendums.
You appear to favor a negotiated solution, which ultimately is the only way to resolve the problems, or at least the fighting. But the reality is that NATO including the US are deeply involved in the fighting supplying weapons, money, real time intelligence, and economic sanctions against Russia. At various times Biden has called for regime change in Russia including assassination and calling Putin a war criminal. SecDef Austin has said the objective is to weaken Russia so it cannot initiate aggressive actions elsewhere.
The US has invested at least $60 billion in Ukraine and counting. Ukraine could not keep up the fight without this assistance. How long can we continue to borrow money to fund this war? Zelensky says it will take $800 billion to rebuild the country. Who pays for that?
Should the US allow Ukraine to hijack our foreign policy with an open-ended commitment to wherever they may take us? Shouldn't we use our leverage to force Zelensky to negotiate a solution? How much pain must be inflicted on the global economy over a war where we have no real strategic interests or treaty obligations? We are the world's biggest debtor nation. We can't afford these endless wars, which actually weaken us when it comes to the real threat from China.
RE: As far as Crimea is concerned, there was a plebiscite held in Crimea after the annexation in 2014.
and this:
RE: The referendum was approved and held amidst Russia’s annexation of Crimea.
I am not comfortable with a referendum under such circumstances. What is needed is a referendum WITHOUT Russian or Ukrainian interference, observed by neutral, disinterested, third party watchers.
Although I have no illusions that most Crimeans DO NOT want to be part of Ukraine ( Crimea’s merging with Ukraine was a forced Kruschev concoction in the 1950’s ). But still, a referendum accepted by all NOT UNDER RUSSIAN or UKRANIAN OCCUPATION is the best approach to this catastrophe.
kabar mentions the referenda but we must interpret them in light of the Russian-speaking people’s, (the “ethnic Russians” of Ukraine,) expectations of the Ukrainian government. They knew and know that their language and rights would be destroyed.
I have followed you, S and F, on FR for many years now, (I’m a big fan,) so I wonder if perhaps it would help to satisfy your curiosity about all this if you were to look into understanding the Slavic mindset, particularly about war in general. Kabar seems to know about this though his answer is tailored to our presuppositions. Many on the thread including some who are aware of events and history in the region, still think like the English. Your comment on the solution is just as reasonable to us and our mindset as was Minsk II and won’t “work” any better. You already understand the geopolitical factors, the “Guns Germs and Steel” part of it, so I am suggesting adding to that the “slavic mind” in our analysis.
20 years ago, I was an occasional teacher at the Slavic Baptist Institute in Kovel Ukraine and had to deal with students and supporting pastors who were very opposed some even hostile to us opening to students from all over the former Soviet Union and to our teaching classes in the Russian language. We were able to settle that once and for all and the school continues to this day. I am really out of te loop these days though.
Thanks to you both!