EAST AND WEST

“Lavrov rejects Ukraine’s peace plan,” was the headline in DIE ZEIT a few days ago, after the Russian Foreign Minister’s appearance at the UN. “Lavrov rejects peace plan and UN proposal for grain agreement. “Russia has once again rejected the Ukrainian peace plan […],” said Deutschlandfunk. Other international media reported similarly and made the most important message of the speech by the head of Russian diplomacy: Russia simply does not want to negotiate. Ukraine has a “peace plan”, but Russia is not interested in peace. Is it really like that?

Until a few weeks ago there was great optimism in Ukraine and the West. The enthusiasm was almost limitless. The Ukrainian counteroffensive, supported by state-of-the-art Western weaponry, would soon liberate all occupied territories, including Crimea. But the slowdown in the much-vaunted counteroffensive has dampened enthusiasm somewhat, but not significantly. The Western press, which has recently often suggested that revenge in Ukraine seems to be progressing slowly, continues to convey the message that Ukraine is only a few steps away from victory and can conquer all of its territory.

In addition, at the beginning of August, Ukraine showed at a summit in Saudi Arabia that it was determined to combine the military initiative with the diplomatic one. In Jeddah, where delegations from 40 countries were present, including China, India, Brazil and the United States, Ukraine presented its 10-point “peace plan.” A peace plan that envisaged the complete withdrawal of all Russian troops from Ukrainian territory and the return of all its territories to Ukraine as a prerequisite for negotiations with Russia. Of course, the Russians should also move out of Crimea. None of this is negotiable for Ukraine. The Ukrainian “peace plan” was hailed by many in the West as a genuine diplomatic success, a “success” on a par with the impending and supposedly unstoppable military counteroffensive. But it is a “peace plan” that, from the perspective of Russia and even Ukraine, looks like a complete surrender for Russia and a triumph for Ukraine. Russia would therefore have no rational incentive to accept such a “peace plan”.

Zelensky suddenly open to negotiations over Crimea?

For this reason, some statements made by Ukrainian President Zelensky a few weeks ago came as a surprise. The news spread rapidly and was based on an interview Zelensky gave to Ukrainian journalist Natalia Moseichuk. Based on this interview, a number of Western media outlets wrote, almost in unison, not only in Switzerland or Germany, but throughout Europe, that Zelensky had spoken openly in favor of negotiations over Crimea.

“Zelensky hinted at solution for Crimea.
The president hopes that the offensive to demilitarize Crimea will be successful. Ukrainian troops continue to advance in the south,” wrote the German taz, for example.

“President Volodimir Zelensky makes a proposal on the future of Crimea,” said the Basler Zeitung.

“Zelensky hinted at a negotiated solution to Crimea,” was the headline in Blick. “Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky believes it is possible that a political solution will be found for the Crimean peninsula annexed by Russia. “If we are at the administrative borders of Crimea, I think we can politically force the demilitarization of Russia on the territory of the peninsula,” said Zelensky.”

The Tagesanzeiger also reported on it: “Zelenski surprises with thought games about Crimea. Conflicting signals from Kiev: The Ukrainian president hinted at a non-military solution for the Crimean peninsula. Is he willing to negotiate?” The newspaper further speculates: “Crimea would be isolated from the rest of Russia, and Moscow could see itself forced to ultimately demilitarize Crimea and perhaps even give it up.”

Similar reporting could be observed in Germany and other European countries.

Negotiations, or “negotiations”?

In fact, the news seemed sensational. Ukraine suddenly open to negotiations with Russia? And what suddenly happened to the “peace plan” and the withdrawal of Russian soldiers as a condition for the negotiations? Was this sensational news or banal sensationalism? Had Zelensky really declared his willingness to negotiate over Crimea? And what would it mean to negotiate in this case? An answer to these questions can be easily found if you read the reports a little more carefully.

This is what Zelensky said: “If we are at the administrative borders of Crimea, I think you can politically implement demilitarizationg of Russia on the territory of the peninsula”.

“In this way there will be fewer victims,” said the Ukrainian president.

Zelensky wanted to negotiate the “demilitarization” of Crimea. Unfortunately, it was not clear from the interview how Zelenskiy would want to achieve “demilitarization” or even the return of Crimea by Russia. Is it realistic to expect that this would be a diplomatically achievable goal that Russia could accept? In winter people were still talking about Crimea as a red line for Russia.

Zelenski’s alleged openness to negotiations over Crimea, presented with great fanfare by the European media, was not about the possible status of Crimea. But more about how Crimea would return to Ukraine. Even assuming that the return of Crimea to Ukraine could theoretically take place, would it be a decision that would take into account the will of Crimea’s citizens?

The will of the people

Not many Crimean citizens seem to want to return to Ukraine after nine years as a subject of the Russian Federation. In nine years there has been no attempt by the population to rejoin Ukraine. Citizens of Crimea took part not only in the 2014 referendum, but also, like all other citizens of the Russian Federation, in all Russian elections held since then. And the Ukrainization policy implemented in Ukraine after 2014 would certainly not go down very well in Crimea, where the vast majority of the population has always felt Russian. The Ukrainization of Crimea could only take place by force. Even Zelenskiy seems to understand this.

Even before 2014, Crimea had already tried to become independent from Ukraine. In 1991, Ukraine gained its independence without much effort. But Ukraine did not want to give back to its regions what it had received. Crimea’s aspirations for independence were firmly opposed by Ukraine, which was in no way willing to give up any part of its territory.

Crimea has been under de facto Russian control since March 2014. For the West, the Maidan Revolution was exclusively a “popular uprising”, i.e. an absolutely legitimate and flawless transfer of power. The volonté générale, the general will of the entire Ukrainian people, would have been directly expressed in this way. For Russia, the Maidan Revolution was an unconstitutional coup. In the West, this interpretation is vehemently rejected: the romanticism of revolution has no time for the letter of the law.

Many in Ukraine were extremely upset after Crimea’s transfer to Russia. Some Ukrainians suggested cutting off water and electricity supplies to force Crimeans to return. Ukrainians claimed that the March 2014 referendum that sanctioned Crimea’s transition to Russia was a sham referendum. The referendum was not recognized internationally. Some even suggested that the election was conducted at gunpoint, as stated in a history textbook used in Ukraine. One could argue that a referendum, even if it did not meet all the criteria of international law, would have more legal legitimacy than an armed revolution like the Maidan. But no. The West immediately recognized the new government in Kiev and stubbornly refused to recognize the Crimean citizens’ desire for self-determination.

Negotiations perhaps, but not with Russia

At the beginning of October last year, President Zelensky issued a decree banning himself from conducting negotiations with Putin. After the February invasion, there were at least three attempts at negotiations between Russia and Ukraine. The American magazine “The American Conservative” reported on this in a notable article a few days ago. Immediately after the Russian invasion, Zelensky and Ukraine agreed to negotiate the status of Crimea and Donbass as well as Ukraine’s neutrality. Ukraine expressed its willingness to close the NATO door that US Secretary of State Antony Blinken wanted to keep open to Ukraine a month earlier.

In Istanbul in March 2022, a kind of agreement was even reached between Russia and Ukraine, as the US magazine “Foreign Affairs” reported. According to Putin, who announced the agreement during the recent Russia-Africa summit in St. Petersburg, the peace agreement has even been signed. The agreement did not include any new Ukrainian territorial losses other than areas that Ukraine had not controlled since 2014. But in both Belarus and Turkey, the United States pressured Ukraine to reject the agreement with Russia, asthe article in “The American Conservative” showed in detial. Against this background, the possibility of negotiations between Ukraine and Russia still seems like a mirage today. No matter what the media in Europe says about it. It is not possible to conduct negotiations only with yourself and your friends.