Trying to predict the longer-term outcome of the conflict using 2030 as a cut off date sufficiently in the future hopefully.
There is a good chance that Russia and Ukraine disagree about the border. For example, Ukraine has not accepted the Crimea annexion in 2014. Instead defacto control is sufficient for resolution but it requires 6 months of cease-fire (if not peace).
The current goal of Ukraine is Pre-2014 border, i.e. Crimea is part of Ukraine again. The current goal of Russia is that Ukraine gives more territory to Russia than Crimea, e.g. Luhansk and Donetsk.
More fineprint from comment discussion:
If Ukraine controls only a minor part of Crimea, I'd still resolve as "Pre-2022".
If Ukraine-controlled landmass is roughly the same as "Pre-2022" then I would resolve it as such, even if the landmass is not all Crimea.
If Crimea becomes an independent state, it will hopefully clearly pick a side and we can resolve it as part of Russia or Ukraine
Related questions
Unlikely but possible options not included: 1) a new sovereign state forms that is controlled by neither country 2) some other power controls a significant portion of territory.
Crimea has been an independent state before (1441-1783).
@mariopasquato If Crimea becomes an independent state we will probably be able to determine which side it is on. I would consider Belarus like Russia and Rumania like Ukraine. Crimea under Turkish control would be tricky though.
Does that sound like a clearer resolution criterium?
@marktweise Yeah thanks. Note btw that when the Khanate of Crimea existed it was precisely a client state of the Ottoman Empire, so Turkey.
My best guess: Ukraine gets Crimea back, but not all of the Eastern losses. Reasoning: Crimea is hard for Russia to supply, and Ukraine can cut off the supply lines, but the areas with land border to Russia can't be cut off. If I'm wrong then it's because Ukraine gets everything back.
@ErikCorry What would happen to the Russian base in sevastopol in this scenario? Arguably that was part of the reason for the 2014 invasion, I doubt they would just let it go.
@mariopasquato In a world where Russia can't hold Crimea militarily, how are they going to hold the naval base?
@mariopasquato The only reason for 2014 invasion was one crazy president. Once he will gone no one will give a damn about such a questions.
@JoshuaWilkes I am arguing that they will try to make sure they can hold Crimea, possibly prioritizing it over other regions. Of course if they are wiped out completely then they will also lose the base.
@mariopasquato I think the logisitics of holding Crimea will be more decisive than their desire to hold Crimea.
In the long run they will have to expand Novorossiysk as a replacement for Sevastopol. Sucks to be Russia with the leader they have. They could probably have kept Crimea and Sevastopol if they hadn't launched the full scale war in 2022.
@ErikCorry Supplying water to Crimean agriculture is another issue, I wonder if there is a market on that?
How exactly do you resolve cases where Crimea is split (e.g. small fragment under control of Ukraine), or Russia controls small parts of other territory, but not all of Crimea?
@Irigi Decision by "majority" feels fair. So controlling a small fraction of Crimea is like controlling nothing there.
@marktweise Thank you. That is majority of Crimea, right? What about the "ceding more than Crimea to Russia"? If Russia holds 75% of Crimea, for example, and also holds small portion of pre 2022 borders, it resolves yes? Or is there some minimum size?
@Irigi Does that really make a difference at this point? We will have six months of cease-fire to discuss that. It is a tradeoff between avoiding N/A and picking one of the options that is fair to traders.
@marktweise Sorry, I am not trying to nitpick. But I would say it is better to clarify the resolution criteria now as much as possible, before people start being committed to particular outcomes.
@Irigi You are right. Let me try to address your case "Russia holds 75% of Crimea, for example, and also holds small portion of pre 2022 borders" with one more commitment:
If Ukraine-controlled landmass is roughly the same as "Pre-2022" then I would resolve it as such, even if the landmass is not all Crimea.
@lambda_fairy The superconductor topic brought lots of new people. That is my theory at least.
@JonathanRay Isn't that what
No cease-fire of 6 months
Is referring to?
Though I see the edge case of a six-month ceasefire followed by resumption of war.
@JonathanRay It resolves to "No cease-fire of 6 months" in the event of no 6-month cease-fire by 2030
@PedeJo Good point. That options is missing and I cannot add it anymore.
I think Pre-2014 is the closest one in that case.
If Russia partly fragments in the east but the legacy piece keeping the Russia name, still has a Ukrainian border, does the 'no Russia anymore' option trigger or not?
@CromlynGames A much smaller Russia would still be Russia. Let's hope that we won't have a big debate about multiple countries calling themselves Russia.
