Scenario: Dubrovnik Agreement

(I picked Dubrovnik because it sounds cool and to my knowledge no major treaty has ever been signed there).

A solution to the current conflict in Ukraine and the various post-soviet frozen conflicts.

Georgia:
The U.S. and the rest of the international community (Georgia included) recognise South Ossetia and Abkhazia as legitimate sovereign states. Russia gives its permission to Georgia for a quick and total accession into the EU and NATO. Russia gives up North Ossetia, which will merge with newly independent South Ossetia to form a single Ossetian state.

Transnistria:
The U.S. and the rest of the international community (Moldova included) recognise Transnistria as a sovereign state. The only conditions are as following: that Russia grant Moldova permission for a quick and total accession into the EU and NATO if it were to ever desire such a thing, and that in the meantime NATO supply Moldova with a 100 billion dollar aid package from the west in exchange for its cooperation.

Ukraine: The U.S. and the rest of the international community (Ukraine included) recognise Crimea as Russian territory and drop all sanctions and diplomatic pressure over the Russian annexation of Crimea. Donetsk and Luhansk remain a part of Ukraine, though with a great deal of newfound autonomy and a joint NATO-Russian force would be stationed there for 20 years to make sure both the Ukrainian government and the former rebels each uphold their end of the agreement. In return, Russia gives its permission to Ukraine for a speedy accession to NATO and the EU. Barring an "extreme emergency", NATO will have a minimal military presence in Ukraine. Instead, it will focus on developing a formidable rapid response force to defend Ukraine in the event of an invasion. Likewise, the NATO troop buildup in the Baltics will be halted. Ukraine will receive a 100 billion dollar aid package from the west to help recover from its war.

Nagorno-Karabakh:
Nobody cares.

Thoughts?

Dassault Papillon: Okay, a lot wrong with this.

(I picked Dubrovnik because it sounds cool and to my knowledge no major treaty has ever been signed there)
Treaties and negotiations to conflicts usually take place in a major city of a neutral observer. Dubrovnik is not going to happen.

ussia gives its permission to Georgia for a quick and total accession into the EU and NATO.
Russia has a very clear foreign policy in the world. No NATO presence shall ever establish itself in the former Soviet bloc, having threatened war on numerous occassions.

The U.S. and the rest of the international community (Georgia included) recognise South Ossetia and Abkhazia as legitimate sovereign states.

Russia doesn't need them South Ossetia or Abkhazia to be recognized. They are frozen conflict zones. As long as Russia recognizes them, they have a justification to send military units to establish de-facto control. They don't need the international community to recognize these proxy nations, they are just protectorates, and Russia only utilizes their existence for strategic purposes.

Russia gives up North Ossetia, which will merge with newly independent South Ossetia to form a single Ossetian state.


Why? How does this relate to either NATO or Russian interests. Do you think there is a chance in hell that they would give up a region of Russia?

The U.S. and the rest of the international community (Moldova included) recognise Transnistria as a sovereign state.

Again, Russia doesn't need the international community to recognize Transnistria. Russia doesn't even recognize Transnistria. The institution of Transistra just provides a cover for Russia to move a garrison of troops into Moldova.

If you follow the news too, Tranistra supposedly wants to become a republic within Russia. Annexation is more likely, and it would be even easier than it was in Crimea, since Transnistria has been a de-facto proxy state since the fall of the Soviet Union.

that Russia grant Moldova permission for a quick and total accession into the EU and NATO if it were to ever desire such a thing

Reiterating

No NATO presence shall ever be established in the former soviet bloc

Russia doesn't have any major foreign interests besides countering the rise of NATO. They have threatened war on numerous occasions if NATO were to adopt any nations that formerly composed the Soviet Union.

The U.S. and the rest of the international community (Ukraine included) recognise Crimea as Russian territory and drop all sanctions and diplomatic pressure over the Russian annexation of Crimea.

The US benefits from the sanctions. They are a justification to limit trade with Russia, weakening them. They have also forced Europe to look for alternative sources of fuel, backing American interests in the Middle East.

Also, recognizing the takeover of Crimea would be abandoning all the negative PR against Russia, and legitimizing future Russian actions (Russia has done what it did in Crimea before, and has even better and less contested justifications to annex areas in other places than Crimea)

Donetsk and Luhansk remain a part of Ukraine

Russia never claimed the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts.

Donetsk and Luhansk remain a part of Ukraine, though with a great deal of newfound autonomy

Russia advocated for autonomy in those oblasts. It is clearly a power play to have two pro-russian influenced governments in Ukraine.

a joint NATO-Russian force would be stationed there for 20 years to make sure both the Ukrainian government and the former rebels each uphold their end of the agreement.

Russia does not want a NATO force on its border. NATO does not want Russian forces in Ukraine (although Russian forces already set up in Ukraine, using the frozen conflict to cover their presence)

Nobody cares.

Nagorno-Karabahk is the only frozen conflict which can be resolved easily, and for both Russia and NATO, the conflict can be exploited for strategic value. It is a puppet state of a recognized state with heavy economic and military ties to Russia. Azerbaijan, which is the one in conflict with the proxy state, has stronger ties with the West on the other hand.

The Russian military is stationed in Armenia. The resolution of the conflict can determine who has the most influence in the Caucasus region, and is easier to move in on than a country like Georgia.

@Analytical_Imbecile

TL;DR

Russia benefits from the frozen conflicts. All of them are maintained because of Russian intervention. All of them exist for one purpose, and that is to counter NATO influences in the former Soviet bloc.

Russia has made many threats of aggression if NATO were to move into the Soviet bloc. That is their foremost foreign policy.

The proposal makes the mistake of thinking that Russia actually cares whether its proxy states and annexations have any official recognition. Russia doesn't care, and from their perspective, everything in this treaty would stand to benefit NATO and lessen Russia's hegemony in the former Soviet bloc.

Crow: Russia would benefit from this too. Allow me to explain:
1. All of the pro-Russia separatist states would now have a UN vote, which they'd cast in favour of Russia on X given issue.
2. Russia would no longer have to put up with NATO sanctions, and a normalisation of relations would lessen the odds of a NATO invasion (which the Russians apparently believe to be a real possibility).
3. Arguably, the NATO/EU expansion into Eastern Europe is ultimately inevitable. If Russia were to accept this treaty, they'd at least see the inevitable happen with some favourable terms attached (if they stop screwing around in Eastern Europe they won't have to worry about a strong NATO presence in Eastern Europe). Plus, they get to make off with Crimea like a bandit.
4. Russia is playing the role of guardian angel of the separatist States. In this case, it would seriously lose face in the eyes of those separatists if they walked away from a deal like this.

Perhaps most importantly, Russia would repair its shattered international image.

Dassault Papillon: All of the pro-Russia separatist states would now have a UN vote, which they'd cast in favour of Russia on X given issue.

Russia's interests rely primarily on limiting NATO influence. Do you think they are going to sacrifice three nations they claim influence over to NATO, just to get three more votes in the general assembly of the UN? Yeah, that is absolutely useless, considering Russia...

1. Russia and affilaitated Eastern nations will always be outnumbered in the UN

2. Russia has an unchecked and unlimited veto on any proposal that goes through the UN

3. The UN is never going to be a useful tool for Russian foreign policy.

2. Russia would no longer have to put up with NATO sanctions, and a normalisation of relations would lessen the odds of a NATO invasion (which the Russians apparently believe to be a real possibility).

No, Russia is worried right now that there power and influence is completely diminishing away. The Russian state certainly likes to instill fear over NATO to its citizens, but the political motivations are mostly for restoring the nation's former hegemony.

3. Arguably, the NATO/EU expansion into Eastern Europe is ultimately inevitable. If Russia were to accept this treaty, they'd at least see the inevitable happen with some favourable terms attached (if they stop screwing around in Eastern Europe they won't have to worry about a strong NATO presence in Eastern Europe). Plus, they get to make off with Crimea like a bandit.

Russia does not believe it is inevitable. I don't even believe it is inevitable.

Russia has threatened war over the issue. These are not idle-threats either. They always put on a show on the borders of NATO nations.

The most interesting part, is that NATO always has backed off.

Russia is playing the role of guardian angel of the separatist States. In this case, it would seriously lose face in the eyes of those separatists if they walked away from a deal like this.


Unlikely, and does it matter much when the primary armed force in these places is Russia themselves.

Crow: Okay, I'll acknowledge that in our current environment Russia is unlikely to agree to this. However, once the situation in Russia looks increasingly bleak and they have no choice but to "surrender", this would probably constitute one of the most favourable possible peace agreements for them.

Dassault Papillon: That is a hypothetical future that is not replicated in this treaty.
Basically a world where this treaty is not relevant, because Russia had already lost all of its leverage.

In my opinion, the fate of the west is just as bleak, if not more subtle.

Crow: Eh, I'd give it 510 years.

5 to 10

Dassault Papillon: You think Russia is going to collapse on the world stage in 5 to 10 years?

That doesn't seem likely, since it has a growing population and economy. Russia's allies are flourishing, and their military industrial complex is off the charts since the 90's.

Also, there are tons of prime oppurtunities to expand influence. The only room NATO is expanding influence is in Africa, which was already moved in on by eastern nations like China.