The crisis in Ukraine. A settlement

Summary.
Characteristic features of the situation :
1. Argumentation of all parties involved is in the style of «ad hoc», which means the absence of a common framework and criterias of decision. As result all the parties of conflict are right and wrong at the same time;
2. By all the parties dominates for sure an intuitive (experimental) approach to find a solution to the conflict: «Let us try this, now let try that…!»;
3. Nobody tries to answer a main question of post-conflict period «Who and how will maintain 46 million people in Ukraine?».
Our comments:
Item1. Condition of contemporary international law «de facto» makes impossible to select a common framework and criterias of decision. Hence an only way is actions of the parties’ leaders in interests of a majority in the countries they represent. Interests of the majority in those countries coincide magically and are in a rapid , peaceful and with minimal loss settlement of the crisis.
Item 2.Instead the intuitive (experimental) approach for the settlement is needed to use so-called «modeling» based on a best proven experience. A best choice here is to appeal to the evolutionary stable strategies of behavior (a term taken from biology). In other words, we are talking about the models tested with hundreds (thousands) of years of human history.
Item 3. In the question above is contained a liability allocation problem (not in words but in deeds!) for survival and development of the large number of people and accordingly – a problem of fundamental distribution of governance functions.
Proposed solutions:
I'll start with the most important item 3. There are only two possible ways for that:  a) external maintenance; b) self-sufficiency. Maintenance in a pure form is excluded for obvious reasons (like an impossible task). Self-sufficiency brings to forefront a question of resource base: «Due to what (what sources)?».
It is known that no one can take care of people better than themselves. The only real resource of self-sufficiency in today's Ukraine is a creativity of broad people  masses or, in other words, a general real self-management at all levels and in all legal forms. An alternative solution of all (or most) proceedings «from top to bottom» does not exist that is proven by the 23-years experience of being as an independent state in that country. Actually in the basis of current crisis lies a disability of unitary governance model «in Ukrainian».
To item 2. Maximum interest in relation to the crisis under discussion are such the evolutionary stable strategies as «Love», «Compromise»,
«Initiative».
«Love» as a strategy of social behavior is nothing more than a humaneness in the broadest sense («saving of people») aimed at real protecting the interests of public majority.
«Compromise» implies a conscious self-limitation of parties involved by giving up a part of their gains from a possible settlement of the conflict .
«Initiative» in spirit of known wording «desire is stronger than forcing» dictates a refusal from destruction or suppression of any parties as ways to eliminate the conflict.
To item 1 (as well as to the rest items) lacks only a model of state apparatus that can be most usefully used as a suitable sample. In our opinion this is «Switzerland» (of course, we are talking about using just fundamental principles but not a full and exact copy!).
It means the following features:
First and foremost, a principle of permanent neutrality.
Secondly, several official languages (as much as necessary. In Switzerland are four of them).
Thirdly, based on a real self-management on sites formation of a state system «from bottom to top» (but not «from top to bottom»).
Fourthly, a minimum set of centralized functions of national (federal) governance  (as in Switzerland): defense, security, foreign affairs, home affairs, infrastructure, finance (federal), development (of economy, education and research).
Fifthly, a concentration of main budget revenues of all levels on sites (respectively the allocation of management responsibilities).
What obtain the parties of conflict as a result of model proposed above?
United States, European Union and Russia remain regarding Ukraine their «status quo»: none of them strengthens its position as a result of settlement.
The new authorities in Kiev («newcomers») and local communities in the east and south of Ukraine («outgoings») retain an unified Ukrainian state. The newcomers could compete among themselves for authority (in acceptable limits) and at the same time the outgoings could arrange your life on sites with a maximum volume of opportunities to take care of their own interests.
Yes, by such the model none of the parties does not reach a win for account of others (the states do not gain a vassal country, the newcomers – a desired «ukrainization», the outgoings – a complete independence or annexation to Russia)! But exactly so looks any real compromise. And perhaps the offered one is most easy.

Dr. Igor Skryagin,
Expert-ethologist

Rostov-on-Don, Russia

17.04.2014