-4

Sure this won't be popular, but it's reality:

Quote: Russian President Vladimir Putin has expressed his preparedness to engage in discussions with his Ukrainian counterpart, with a focus on obtaining a guarantee of neutral status and the promise of no weapons on its territory.

In consideration of many years of protracted violence, is de-militarization of Ukraine a reasonable way forward to retain Ukrainian independence?

On the on hand, it's the conditions that Putin has demanded since 2015. On the other, Putin is insipring minimal trust. Can it avert war and occupation too?

0

2 Answers 2

3

De-Militarization of Ukraine would just make it easier for the Russian military to take over the country as they would have even less to oppose them then they currently have. At this point I don't see how Russia invading can be blamed on the Ukraine having a military especially when you consider they have a treaty with Russia regarding interfering with them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine

On December 5, 1994 the leaders of Ukraine, Russia, Britain and the United States signed a memorandum to provide Ukraine with security assurances in connection with its accession to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state. The four parties signed the memorandum, containing a preamble and six paragraphs. The memorandum reads as follows:[10]

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,

Welcoming the accession of Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as non-nuclear-weapon State,

Taking into account the commitment of Ukraine to eliminate all nuclear weapons from its territory within a specified period of time,

Noting the changes in the world-wide security situation, including the end of the Cold War, which have brought about conditions for deep reductions in nuclear forces.

Confirm the following:

  1. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.

  2. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

  3. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.

  4. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.

  5. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm, in the case of Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a State in association or alliance with a nuclear-weapon State.

  6. Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Northern Ireland, and the United States of America will consult in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning these commitments.

— Memorandum on Security Assurances in Connection with Ukraine’s Accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons[10]

8
  • It's a negotiation offer from the world's 2nd most powerful army surrounding the capital, is the overt military way better then? That way guarantees a hard occupation and guarantees puppet regime change, like chechnya. Presumably Ukraine can only opt for guerilla war either way. Negotiations may well keep Ukraine sovereign. Commented Feb 24, 2022 at 23:27
  • The 200 billion of annual EU oil trade that Russia stands to lose from protracted violence may secure a deal. Commented Feb 24, 2022 at 23:35
  • @LifeInTheTrees What does De-Militarization of Ukraine have to do with Russia losing out on trade deals? They are already violating treaties that they signed and they are suffering the results of the invasion with a military to stand against them, what is there to suggest this would be any different if the Ukraine didn't have a military other then they would be further along in invading them?
    – Joe W
    Commented Feb 25, 2022 at 0:13
  • @LifeInTheTrees - It is also unclear why you believe that demilitarization could avoid a "puppet regime," as you say. All of Putin's rhetoric—not mealy-mouthed statements by government agents like the one you mentioned—suggest that the installation of a strong pro-Russian government in Ukraine would be the minimum acceptable outcome for him.
    – Obie 2.0
    Commented Feb 25, 2022 at 0:21
  • Well, to play the devil's advocate here, if you read Putin's full statement/speech, he's repeatedly invoked various UN articles to claim his move in Ukraine is justified to stop a "genocide". Commented Feb 25, 2022 at 0:56
3

There're a few problems with your question. Let's examine:

On the on hand, [demilitarization is] the conditions that Putin has demanded since 2015

This isn't correct. Putin demanded Minsk II be adhered to, and Minsk II does not have a demilitarization clause.

Can [demilitarization] avert war and occupation too?

It assuredly can, in the same way that Ukraine agreeing never to join NATO can assuredly avert war and occupation. "Should Ukraine agree?", however, is another question.

Here's the sequence of events since the 2015 Minsk agreements were agreed upon.

So could Ukraine refusing Western military aid and not expanding the military have averted war and occupation? It surely would have, but it would also mean that Ukraine must do something they don't want to do at "gunpoint" (not literally, but they'd certainly feel coerced about). Would you do it if you were Ukraine?

6
  • To me, it is quite unclear whether now, with the war literally underway, any concession by Ukraine will necessarily change Putin's plans, and certainly nothing can avert war at this point (it is a fait accompli). Why would Putin accept a mere promise not to join NATO after so much preparation, when his rhetoric has increasingly indicated that he sees the entire Ukrainian government as illegitimate?
    – Obie 2.0
    Commented Feb 25, 2022 at 0:28
  • @Obie2.0 I suppose Ukraine could declare a unilateral ceasefire and surrender, which would stop the war, but aside from that it's probably too late.
    – Allure
    Commented Feb 25, 2022 at 0:29
  • It would stop the war, but would it change what Putin would do? It seems as if it would just make things easier for him. And if occupation is his goal—which it could be—then he would not have any reason to turn aside just because Ukraine did something nice for him.
    – Obie 2.0
    Commented Feb 25, 2022 at 0:31
  • @Obie2.0 maybe - but it would "change Putin's plans" since it stops the war.
    – Allure
    Commented Feb 25, 2022 at 0:47
  • It was treaties that caused WW1 and WW2... So why rant about a failed treaty that wasn't implemented by both sides. Is it really good for the USA to join Rus and China and fight them together? Would it have been better to accept Putin's wish to be friends with America, that he set out with Clinton? And thus divide and rule the major China Rus superpowers? Is Washington making massive strategic oversights? Why does Biden chum up with the Saudi Prince and not Putin if he is an ideologist? why not both? Commented Feb 25, 2022 at 9:53

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .