Crimea held a referendum for independence from Ukraine in 2014. It passed by 95%.
If anyone has any doubts about how the referendum would turn out in the Donbas, they only need to look at this to have their questions answered.
1) No, but will agree that neither NATO nor any of its member states will house any nuclear weapons or (defined) launch capability in Ukraine;
2) Agree to hold plebiscite in defined region of disputed territories, and to abide by results. Who is eligible to vote would have to be defined up front.
Why would continued destruction of Ukraine and loss of life be worth holding off for a better deal? This decision is for the Russians and Ukrainians to hash out. I don’t give a rip but Biden leading WW3 is not something I want to live through. Not do I particularly want more countries joining NATO.
> Agree to hold plebiscite in defined region of disputed territories, and to abide by results. <
Ukraine won’t like that, but it might happen anyway.
It’s a side point, but the United States is all for self-determination...except for within its own borders. There’d be hell to pay should any state decide try to leave the Union, even if a large majority of its voters decided to do so.
(We of course saw that back in 1861.)
Too late. They had this plan for 8 years and dragged on it.
Crimea held a referendum for independence from Ukraine in 2014. It passed by 95%.
If anyone has any doubts about how the referendum would turn out in the Donbas, they only need to look at this to have their questions answered.
There you go, being reasonable again.
No way anybody accepts that even if you had the place or power to offer it.
This is similar to what I’ve been thinking. NATO and perhaps accepting ‘some’ recognition of part(s) of Ukraine being autonomous (friendly to Russia).