Ukrainian crisis for four

At the beginning of the week, US Secretary of State John Kerry presented a new initiative for the de-escalation of the Russia-Ukraine relations. According to the spokesperson for the US Department of State Jen Psaki, US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov discussed the possibility of conducting direct negotiations between the US, Russia, the EU, and Ukraine within the next 10 days on the issue of finding a peaceful solution to the Ukrainian crisis. Psaki said that Kerry made it clear that any moves by Moscow to destabilize Ukraine will incur further costs for Russia. Moreover, the Department of State spokesperson added that the United States understands very well that Russian interference was obvious in the events in southeast Ukraine.

Moreover, Kerry “called on Russia to publicly disavow the activities of separatists and provocateurs in Ukraine and urged to defuse tensions and start a dialog. He made clear that any further Russian efforts to destabilize Ukraine will incur further costs for Russia,” Psaki noted.

On the other hand, Russia’s Foreign Minister Lavrov emphasized the “importance of a real dialog on the federal system and consolidation of its neutral status, and the urgent need, especially in the conditions of growing protests in the southeast of Ukraine, of the deep and transparent constitutional reform with the equal participation of all political forces and regions.”

On April 8, head of the Ukrainian MFA Andrii Deshchytsia spoke in his second conversation with his Russian colleague in the context of escalation of the situation in separate cities in eastern Ukraine by the pro-Russian forces about the “unacceptability of the external interference in Ukraine’s affairs.” He also urged the “Russian side to provide the fulfillment of previous agreements on the de-escalation of the security state near Ukrainian borders.”

The Day addressed former ambassador of Ukraine to the United States Oleh SHAMSHUR to comment on the US Department of State’s position on the organization of negotiations between Ukraine, Russia, the US, and the EU.

“Certainly, a priori negotiations are better than an exchange of shots. If we look at what the US Department of State spokesperson said while announcing this statement, it is good that the United States has a realistic view on the situation in and around Ukraine, and in particular, on the disturbances that took place in three eastern oblasts of Ukraine. At the same time, it is very important to understand and realistically assess what the parties are taking to the negotiations. And I personally have doubts as for Russia’s possible stand. I think that it is highly likely that Russians will present another package of demands for Ukraine during these negotiations again, starting with federalization, which they or some Ukrainian politicians voiced lately. I cannot call these Russia’s demands anything else but interference with Ukraine’s domestic affairs and the desire to determine Ukraine’s fate in this or another way from the Kremlin. That is why, keeping in mind Russia’s behavior in previous international negotiations of such kind, it is very important not to let it stall the negotiations and slow down the possible implementation of sanctions against Russia by the international community on a new level. That is, it is not negotiations for the sake of negotiations, but for achieving the result. At the same time, I find it hard to imagine what the subject of these negotiations could be, especially when taking Russia’s position into consideration. But it is important for us not to let the international community forget that Ukraine became a victim of Russia’s aggression. That is, Russia remains an aggressor state. Crimea still is an occupied territory of Ukraine. On the other hand, we have to remember that there is a unique situation in Ukraine now to reset the country in general, the governmental system, and at the same time, develop a new paradigm of our relations with Russia. It is important for this paradigm to be real, we should not forget about this as well.”

By the way, Psaki emphasized that the US Secretary of State “called on Russia to publicly disavow the activities of separatists and provocateurs in Ukraine, and also urged to defuse tensions and start a dialog.” And Russia’s MFA made a statement that 150 American mercenaries dressed in Sokil uniform will help bringing order in the eastern oblasts. How can you comment on that?

“I think that Kerry’s statement is absolutely right. I would even say that his call is rhetoric, because we can hardly expect Russia to disavow these activities, and Russia’s statement about American mercenaries shows that Russia is not likely to come with the genuine desire to regulate the situation. And I have very serious doubts about that.”

What can you say about involving the EU to the organization of negotiations between Ukraine and Russia?

“If we talk about effective pressure on Russia, it must be coordinated between Europe and the US.”

By the way, what can you say about statements made by Steinmeier and MEP Brok, who do not see Ukraine as a NATO member, which effectively coincides with one of the demands of Russia’s ultimatum on the consolidation of the non-aligned status of our country in the Constitution?

“If we talk about the chances or the results of negotiations, they are not very high specifically because of Russia’s position. But on the other hand, I am worried by the statements voiced by European diplomats and politicians. If Europe is ready to accept or satisfy some of Russia’s demands even indirectly, this creates a very dangerous precedent. It is dangerous for Ukraine, as well as for European security on the whole. It is effectively destroyed, and such statements play in Russia’s favor. They strengthen its position as a country that can freely determine the fate of the countries which are weaker and dependent on it in some or another way and are located near it, or which it views as a part of its zone of interests. It is very important for Ukraine to firmly reject the attempts to make it a part of the new Russian World or a zone of Russian influence.”

What can you say about NATO’s role in this situation? Does the Alliance have to do more to increase Ukraine’s security, its military and other power structures? Does it have to provide financial assistance?

“Firstly, now is a great opportunity to start a dialog with society about Ukraine’s participation in this collective security system. Secondly, cooperation with NATO must be intensified now, in particular, in the military sphere, along the lines of providing technical help and arms supply. It is obvious that Ukraine is in need of this kind of help. The military and technical cooperation must be activated now because our relations with Russia are complicated, given Russia’s aggressive intentions.”

Do you think it would be appropriate to hold a referendum on Ukraine’s joining NATO on May 25 as well?

“I understand why such offers are made: to settle this question once and forever. A frank dialog with society about the fallacy of the non-aligned country status is needed now. This status must be changed and Ukraine’s participation in the collective security system, which is based on principles for which people died at Maidan, on the principles of democracy, must be discussed. I do not see anything else besides NATO. But this must be explained to society, people must be convinced from the perspective of Russia’s aggression. Our attitude towards Russia as to a brotherly country was permanently destroyed by this aggression, and will remain so until the policy of the Russian leadership changes.”