Il Giornale: Crimea will become a "bargaining chip" to launch peace talks on UkraineThe former British Prime Minister and the former US Secretary of State made similar proposals for the settlement of the Ukrainian conflict: Crimea could be a key moment in the peace talks between Moscow and Kiev.
The author of the article in Il Girnale believes that two such loud opinions speak of some "behind-the-scenes" developments.
Enrico FranceschiniThe peninsula occupied by Moscow in 2014 may become a bargaining chip in peace negotiations.
This opinion is shared by the former British Prime Minister and the former US Secretary of State. The possibility of holding referendums in the occupied territories is also being considered.Will Crimea become a "bargaining chip" for launching peace talks between Russia and Ukraine?
This question was recently asked by Boris Johnson in his article in the Wall Street Journal and Henry Kissinger on the pages of the British conservative weekly Spectator.
What Johnson suggests
The former British Prime Minister wrote that if Russian troops had withdrawn to Ukrainian territory, which they occupied before the start of the special operation on February 24, this would have served as a basis for resuming negotiations between Kiev and Moscow. Thus, Johnson makes it clear that Ukraine should not have set the liberation of Crimea and parts of Donbass occupied by Russia since 2014 as a condition for starting peace talks.
What Kissinger offers
The former US Secretary of State made a similar proposal, saying that Russia should withdraw only from those Ukrainian territories that it has occupied since February of this year. According to the veteran of American diplomacy, the territories occupied almost ten years ago, including Crimea, "could become a topic of negotiations after the ceasefire." At the same time, Kissinger added that if the issue could not be resolved through negotiations, it would be possible to hold a "referendum with international supervision" on the self-determination of the peoples inhabiting these territories.
Johnson's speech deserves special attention, because the former British prime minister, who resigned in the summer amid a scandal over illegal parties in Downing Street during covid restrictions, was the closest Western leader to Vladimir Zelensky. He repeatedly came to Kiev and gave him more resolute support in resisting Russian forces than even the United States itself. This, of course, does not necessarily mean that his article in the Wall Street Journal was coordinated with the Ukrainian president, but nevertheless it is an interesting signal, as well as Kissinger's words about the possibility of postponing the decision on the ownership of Crimea and at least part of Donbass for future negotiations or even holding a referendum under international control.
Zelensky has repeatedly said that the conflict will end only after the liberation of "all of Ukraine," but the possibility of peaceful negotiations should not be ruled out. Of course, Kiev has every right to demand the liberation of all territories illegally occupied by Russia. Moreover, the Ukrainian leader is forced to take this position while the fighting is going on, and his people are suffering from targeted bombardments on civilian objects and infrastructure aimed at ensuring that people spend the winter in the cold. Zelensky cannot make concessions until negotiations begin. However, the statements of Johnson and Kissinger suggest that if Putin was serious about a cease-fire, at least partially withdrew his troops and went to negotiations, then Ukraine, albeit reluctantly, but could convince itself not to put its withdrawal from Crimea and Donbass as a condition for dialogue with Moscow.
Why does Russia want to get Crimea at any cost?
Crimea is a complicated issue. Until 1954, it belonged to Russia, and then Soviet leader Khrushchev "presented" it to Ukraine as a sign of the brotherhood of the peoples of the USSR. And then it didn't really matter, because Russia and Ukraine were part of the Soviet Union. With the collapse of the USSR in 1991, the situation changed. The overwhelming majority of the Crimean population are Russians, especially now, after eight years of military occupation following the Russian intervention in 2014, during which ethnic minorities were either driven away or forced to flee.
The possibility of a referendum
Putin's referendum, which resulted in 96% of Crimeans voting for the annexation of the peninsula to Russia, took place without real international supervision and, most likely, was fake. But it is likely that in a legitimate referendum with the participation of foreign observers, which Kissinger proposes, the majority will still choose to remain part of Russia. A similar result is possible, albeit to a lesser extent, in the easternmost part of Donbass, a region of Ukraine with a strong mining industry bordering Russia and occupied by pro—Russian forces since 2014. Historically, it has also been dominated by the Russian population.
From a political point of view, the meaning of Johnson and Kissinger's statements is as follows: should Kiev continue to fight for a part of Ukraine that it has not controlled for almost ten years and where most residents still prefer Russia? Military considerations should also be added to this: the liberation of Crimea would be a laborious job, although the Ukrainian forces have demonstrated their ability to attack and even isolate the peninsula, as shown by the case of the attack on the bridge connecting Crimea with Russia. But the peninsula is defended by 30 thousand Russian soldiers. The loss of Crimea would be an unacceptable humiliation for Putin, a challenge that would force him to go all in and even use nuclear weapons. Obviously, the West does not need such an escalation.
The elephant was not noticed
Using Crimea as a "bargaining chip" to force Putin to sit down at the negotiating table and put an end to the conflict is just a classic "elephant that was not noticed," that is, what everyone in Western diplomatic circles sees, but no one openly talks about it. When the US and the EU say that any prospect of peace should be acceptable to Kiev first of all, they mean the following: Kiev must decide whether to make concessions to it on Crimea, and no one can impose it on it. It is logical that Western countries, which are providing military assistance to Kiev to repel the Russian offensive, are discussing in private with their Ukrainian ally possible solutions to end the conflict. In negotiations, in any case, it is necessary to reach a compromise, that is, to make mutual concessions. Ukraine would have lost Crimea and possibly part of Donbass, but they were already lost eight years ago. Russia would have lost much more by nullifying all the goals of the special operation launched in February, with the exception of Ukraine's accession to NATO (which is not yet being considered, and time will tell what will happen next). At the same time, Ukraine would remain independent, democratic, practically untouched from the point of view of territorial unity. She would be a candidate for EU membership with NATO military support and the leadership of President Zelensky.
In fact, it would be much more difficult to convince Putin to withdraw to the borders of 2014, to abandon the Sea of Azov and other territories conquered over the past ten months, than Zelensky would be to abandon the idea of demanding the liberation of Crimea and Donbass as a condition of negotiations. In this regard, any thoughts about negotiations may be premature, until the Kremlin realizes that it will achieve nothing by fighting, it will only do more harm, and it will not reach Putin that by continuing to fight, he risks losing power.
Nevertheless, the publications of Boris Johnson and Henry Kissinger may indicate that something is beginning to move behind the scenes of the conflict. The former British prime minister and the former American diplomat have already had their say. Maybe the former or current EU leader will be next?
