Define fair. Peace deals are never black and white. Especially when dealing with nuclear powers. There are no winners in this. And we're not going to overthrow Putin, that's a pipe dream.
The victims in this are the people of Ukraine, on both sides of this conflict. This, just like so many other conflicts in modern history, is the result of randomly drawing borders and ignoring ethnic separations. Or regime changes because leaders in, say America; know better than the people that live there.
Just split the country up again, East/West and call it a day. Build a new wall or DMZ and get on with the cold war, the Left so desperately wants. From initiating a civil war through regime change, under Obama, to Hillary promising war with Russia if elected and now full on proxy war. Because Putin invading, was not worried about the US that is led by an old man that needs to be in a dementia ward of some senior home. Or Europe that is Russia's Bitch.
For example, if both sides made concessions, agreed to something like the 1997 treaty, that guaranteed Russia and Ukraine would not attack eachother, use their territories to harm their respective security interests, and instead respect their borders and territorial integrity. Sounds mighty fair to me.
But this is nigh impossible now. Ukraine won't accept annexation of its territories and their choice of allies be dictated by anyone but themselves. While Russia will most likely not accept voluntarily ceding the occupied territories back to Ukraine ( especialy after annexing them ) and Ukraine becoming part of NATO. That's why I'm saying, like what compromise could possibly be made in the current environment, that anyone would agree to or consider fair.
I will also maintain, that peace with their neighbours, was never in Putins interest. NATO was not present in Ukraine, to justify their attack in 2014. Ukrainian territory was not used to harm Russian security interests. They seized Crimea, purely in fear of eventualy losing their leased naval base to a pro-Western Ukraine, and with that, also eliminated any prospect of NATO membership. Why not go a step further, send terrorists like Girkin to instigate a war of secession in as many regions as possible, while at it. So Putin can permanently destabilize the country and annex further lands to accomodate his "Greater Russia" plans.
I agree, but if we went
that deep, why should only Ukraine be split ? The same would apply to Russia then, where they bomb people for even suggesting that. North Caucaus and other regions. Both countries are full with ethnic minorities, or every other country. Only that would be fair.
The problem is this: If peaceful referenda took place, without Russia invading, on top of instigating, organising and militarily supporting secessionism in Ukraine, then I'd be fine with the idea. But exactly that forceful bs is happening ( again ... since the Bolsheviks started it in the 1920s and before them the Russian Empire ) and we are thrown back to what you pointed out. Interfering powers, making such events anything but legitimate and morally justifiable.
There is complicity in Western involvment, sure. Europe wanted Ukraine to become part of their trade empire, instead of it remaining a permanent economic leverage for Russia and military buffer. Especialy before Putin could install a puppet. However, Western involvement or not, it were the Ukrainian people who made that decision, after Yanukovich ignored their will and even parliament votes, and Russia is the one who invaded with its military, inciting and organising a rebellion. Behaving like Russia does, because that's how Russia behaves and has been for centuries. They've been longer at that game than the modern Americas. From our POV, you could see this coming from miles away, with or without Western interference. We even warned them repeatedly after 2008.
