FM: John Whitbeck
Current reporting (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/11/world/europe/trump-ukraine-european-leaders.html) suggests that the territorial issue standing in the way of ending the war in Ukraine has now boiled down solely to the fate of the portion of Donetsk oblast which is not yet under Russian control, with Russia apparently willing to drop its sovereignty claim to the portions of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson oblasts which it does not yet control and to withdraw its forces from all portions of internationally recognized Ukrainian territory which Russia has not formally annexed and, hence, does not consider, in accordance with its own constitution, to be Russian territory.
It should also be clear to all concerned -- although it is not yet -- that the pursuit of "legally binding" security "guarantees" is simply a quest for face-saving eyewash and, unless it is proposed that such "guarantees" take the form of NATO forces on Ukrainian territory, the very possibility which provoked this war, is essentially meaningless in a world in which states regularly violate formal legal obligations whenever they conflict with the perceived interests of the moment (https://www.counterpunch.org/2025/11/26/the-article-5-illusion). The nature of any ostensible security "guarantee"-- indeed, even Ukraine's "right" to join NATO -- should not alone be permitted to prolong this war.
Presented Zelensky suggested yesterday that ceding internationally recognized Ukrainian territory would require a referendum. While he had in mind a referendum of all Ukrainians on ceding any internationally recognized Ukrainian territory, the democratic concept of letting the people decide has now been introduced and could be constructively adapted.
In this context, I am taking the liberty of supplementing my message of December 10 with a retransmission (below) of my message of November 22.
NOTE: The issue of Ukraine's "right" to join NATO, which, since Ukrainian membership would require the unanimous consent of all existing member states, has never been a realistic possibility, reminds me of a classic scene in the great film Monty Python's Life of Brian in which the governing board of the People's Front of Judea confronts the conundrum of the desire of Stan/Loretta, a male member of the board aspring to be a woman, to bear children and finally passes a resolution affirming Stan/Loretta's "right", notwithstanding his/her acknowledged absence of a womb, to bear children. Ukraine's formal "right" to join NATO can be viewed similarly but, having played a major role in provoking this war and still being viewed as a serious issue that could prevent peace, has never been and is not now a laughing matter.
****************
November 22, 2025
TO: Distinguished Recipients
FM: John Whitbeck
On Thursday night, I circulated an assessment of the Trump "peace plan" for Ukraine which my distinguished recipient Anatol Lieven had written before the text of the plan became publicly available (https://responsiblestatecraft.org/trump-plan-ukraine-war).
Transmitted below is his assessment of the plan published yesterday, after the text of the plan became available.
Few would argue with Anatol's assertion that "On the Ukrainian side, the biggest and most difficult concession by far is agreeing to withdraw from the approximately 14% of the Donbas region that Ukraine still holds."
That being the case, President Zelensky, who has said that he will "propose alternatives" to the plan and has promised a "constructive search for solutions," should seriously consider proposing a democratic solution (https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/03/17/a-democratic-end-to-ukraines-war) -- a UN-organized self-determination referendum in the portion of contested Donetsk oblast that Ukraine still holds which would permit the people living there to choose whether they wish to live in Russia or in Ukraine.
Proposing such a democratic solution would constitute a "constructive search for solutions", would be instantly advantegous to Ukraine from a public perceptions standpoint and would be awkward for Russia to reject out of hand, since doing so would suggest that Russia seeks to rule over people who, if given a choice, would reject Russian rule.
Since a referendum in only the Ukrainian-controlled portion of Donetsk oblast would be likely to favor Ukraine, Russia might then counterpropose a referendum in all of Donetsk oblast in the belief that such a referendum would be likely to favor Russia -- and, if Russia did so, rejecting this alternative, which would suggest a Ukrainian belief that such a referendum would indeed favor Russia, would be awkward for Ukraine for the same reason.
In any event, if the concept of "let the people who live there decide" were to be introduced into good-faith negotiations regarding the most difficult territorial issue blocking any pathway to a lasting peace, it could, by saving face for the decision-makers on all sides (including European governments, which continue to insist that any peace must be "just and lasting"), make a lasting (and not totally unjust) peace possible.
In this context, an article on the inherent conflict between the two principles of the territorial integrity of states and the self-determination of peoples which I wrote on the day that Russia extended diplomatic recognition to the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic, the two majority-Russophone Donbas oblasts, and which was published on the day that Russia launched its "special military operation" (https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/02/24/the-territorial-integrity-of-states-vs-the-self-determination-of-peoples), ostensibly to support and protect the territorial integrity of states which it recognized, may also be relevant.
![]()
Current reporting (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/11/world/europe/trump-ukraine-european-leaders.html) suggests that the territorial issue standing in the way of ending the war in Ukraine has now boiled down solely to the fate of the portion of Donetsk oblast which is not yet under Russian control, with Russia apparently willing to drop its sovereignty claim to the portions of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson oblasts which it does not yet control and to withdraw its forces from all portions of internationally recognized Ukrainian territory which Russia has not formally annexed and, hence, does not consider, in accordance with its own constitution, to be Russian territory.
It should also be clear to all concerned -- although it is not yet -- that the pursuit of "legally binding" security "guarantees" is simply a quest for face-saving eyewash and, unless it is proposed that such "guarantees" take the form of NATO forces on Ukrainian territory, the very possibility which provoked this war, is essentially meaningless in a world in which states regularly violate formal legal obligations whenever they conflict with the perceived interests of the moment (https://www.counterpunch.org/2025/11/26/the-article-5-illusion). The nature of any ostensible security "guarantee"-- indeed, even Ukraine's "right" to join NATO -- should not alone be permitted to prolong this war.
Presented Zelensky suggested yesterday that ceding internationally recognized Ukrainian territory would require a referendum. While he had in mind a referendum of all Ukrainians on ceding any internationally recognized Ukrainian territory, the democratic concept of letting the people decide has now been introduced and could be constructively adapted.
In this context, I am taking the liberty of supplementing my message of December 10 with a retransmission (below) of my message of November 22.
NOTE: The issue of Ukraine's "right" to join NATO, which, since Ukrainian membership would require the unanimous consent of all existing member states, has never been a realistic possibility, reminds me of a classic scene in the great film Monty Python's Life of Brian in which the governing board of the People's Front of Judea confronts the conundrum of the desire of Stan/Loretta, a male member of the board aspring to be a woman, to bear children and finally passes a resolution affirming Stan/Loretta's "right", notwithstanding his/her acknowledged absence of a womb, to bear children. Ukraine's formal "right" to join NATO can be viewed similarly but, having played a major role in provoking this war and still being viewed as a serious issue that could prevent peace, has never been and is not now a laughing matter.
****************
November 22, 2025
TO: Distinguished Recipients
FM: John Whitbeck
On Thursday night, I circulated an assessment of the Trump "peace plan" for Ukraine which my distinguished recipient Anatol Lieven had written before the text of the plan became publicly available (https://responsiblestatecraft.org/trump-plan-ukraine-war).
Transmitted below is his assessment of the plan published yesterday, after the text of the plan became available.
Few would argue with Anatol's assertion that "On the Ukrainian side, the biggest and most difficult concession by far is agreeing to withdraw from the approximately 14% of the Donbas region that Ukraine still holds."
That being the case, President Zelensky, who has said that he will "propose alternatives" to the plan and has promised a "constructive search for solutions," should seriously consider proposing a democratic solution (https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/03/17/a-democratic-end-to-ukraines-war) -- a UN-organized self-determination referendum in the portion of contested Donetsk oblast that Ukraine still holds which would permit the people living there to choose whether they wish to live in Russia or in Ukraine.
Proposing such a democratic solution would constitute a "constructive search for solutions", would be instantly advantegous to Ukraine from a public perceptions standpoint and would be awkward for Russia to reject out of hand, since doing so would suggest that Russia seeks to rule over people who, if given a choice, would reject Russian rule.
Since a referendum in only the Ukrainian-controlled portion of Donetsk oblast would be likely to favor Ukraine, Russia might then counterpropose a referendum in all of Donetsk oblast in the belief that such a referendum would be likely to favor Russia -- and, if Russia did so, rejecting this alternative, which would suggest a Ukrainian belief that such a referendum would indeed favor Russia, would be awkward for Ukraine for the same reason.
In any event, if the concept of "let the people who live there decide" were to be introduced into good-faith negotiations regarding the most difficult territorial issue blocking any pathway to a lasting peace, it could, by saving face for the decision-makers on all sides (including European governments, which continue to insist that any peace must be "just and lasting"), make a lasting (and not totally unjust) peace possible.
In this context, an article on the inherent conflict between the two principles of the territorial integrity of states and the self-determination of peoples which I wrote on the day that Russia extended diplomatic recognition to the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic, the two majority-Russophone Donbas oblasts, and which was published on the day that Russia launched its "special military operation" (https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/02/24/the-territorial-integrity-of-states-vs-the-self-determination-of-peoples), ostensibly to support and protect the territorial integrity of states which it recognized, may also be relevant.
Ukraine-Russia peace plan offers best chance to end the war
This plan demands concessions from both sides. Credit: Getty
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Whitbeck Blog" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to whitbeck-blog+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/whitbeck-blog/87fb4622-c2fc-4b41-93c7-6a4f06ae4102%40gmail.com.