A vague road map

Putin was finally persuaded to return to the Normandy format. Previously, he’d said he saw no sense in keeping up the format after the Kremlin’s allegations about the Ukrainian defense ministry’s “acts of terrorism” had blown up in its face. Arranging the Berlin summit was easier said than done. The German and French sides had spared no effort to talk the leader of the aggressor state into joining the negotiating table until he agreed. As usual, he was the last to arrive, so the talks began 30 minutes later than scheduled and lasted for more than four hours.

Even before the summit the parties didn’t feel optimistic about the outcome, with the Russians demanding implementation of the political clauses of the Minsk agreements and Ukrainians demanding that the Kremlin honor its security obligations first…

President Poroshenko was the first to meet with the media after the talks, saying security arrangements must be made before holding elections on occupied territories, that all foreign troops must withdraw, that the Road Map envisages consistency and guarantees, so the election date, election terms and conditions are certainly security issues, ditto ceasefire, withdrawal of foreign troops, keeping the disengagement line, securing OSCE observers free access to the hot spots and releasing hostages. Mr. Poroshenko went on to say that the Road Map would be prepared by Normandy Four foreign ministers and submitted to be signed by the heads of state in November.

The other parties to the talks made their statements later. President Francois Hollande said security was basic for the success of the Minsk agreements. Chancellor Angela Merkel said they had discussed the ceasefire and withdrawal of troops, that certain steps had been taken, but that much was still to be accomplished. She added that the possibility of an armed OSCE mission in Donbas had to be considered in conjunction with elections on occupied territories, and that each OSCE observer had to have access to the part of the Ukraine-Russia border under the militants’ control.

Russian President Vladimir Putin declared that they had agreed on selecting points and areas where work could be continued to disengage the parties to the conflict, and that such disengagement had been made in two such places. He went on to say that Russia was prepared to extend the OSCE mission to the areas of troops and materiel withdrawal and storage of materiel.

Note that Mr. Poroshenko and Ms. Merkel referred to an extended and possibly armed OSCE mission in the occupied regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, also the terrorist-controlled part of the border with the Russian Federation, whereas Mr. Putin only said that the mission would have access to the troops and materiel withdrawal and storage areas. This makes a big difference. Mr. Poroshenko stressed that, after disengaging the warring sides, withdrawing troops and materiel at Petrovske, Zolote, and Stanytsia Luhanska, similar efforts had to be made in four other areas, primarily at Debaltseve.

Official Kyiv had been allowing itself to be lured into a diplomatic mantrap from day one of the Minsk talks, a fact repeatedly mentioned by the editors. The situation started getting from bad to worse after Leonid Kuchma, the architect of Ukraine’s clannish/oligarchic system, was appointed as chief negotiator. Today, one must act proceeding from the circumstances, namely, the Minsk clauses that have to be implemented. Also, proceeding from the fact that the Kremlin and the DNR and LNR thugs under its control are not meeting their obligations under the agreements. Ukraine has every right to demand that the aggressor state fulfill the Minsk agreements first and honor its commitments next. What was the actual outcome of the Normandy Four Summit in Berlin?

1 The meeting took place, which is good, but it ended leaving a number of issues unresolved (especially Vladimir Putin’s stand in the matter of extending the OSCE mission), which is bad.

2 Should this police force [OSCE monitoring mission] have only side arms, what role could it possibly play during the intended elections? These men would have no right to monitor the process, and this considering that the thug, Zakharchenko, has warned that he will slaughter all members of an armed monitoring team, and that rallies against this mission have been staged in Luhansk.

3 Disengagement line at Debaltseve. Was the 2014 line taken into account? More questions than answers.

4 Road map. Why November, considering that all disengagement mechanisms have been worked out? Waiting for the outcome of the US presidential election?

5 Withdrawal of troops and materiel leaves the big problem of taking care of the populace. Who will protect these people after the military leaves? The local authorities are showing no such intentions.

NOTHING ACTUALLY AGREED, NOTHING SIGNED

Oleksii MELNYK, co-director, foreign policy and international security programs, Razumkov Center:

“As a matter of fact, no Road Map was agreed upon, nothing was signed. They got as far as arranging for preparations for a road map. A closer look at what Poroshenko, Putin, and other summit participants had to say afterward shows noticeable differences in assessing the outcome of the talks. This is further proof that no agreement was reached. They spoke, referring to the same issues but interpreting them their own way. A nasty headache for those to be tasked with drafting the Road Map.

“Mr. Poroshenko broached the subject of territories that have to be under Ukraine’s control, according to Minsk-1 (and which were seized by the enemy afterward) at sufficient length and depth. Listening to him, one can assume that Ukraine is being supported by its European partners. Debaltseve is a key point in that context; we all know what was happening there when signing Minsk-2, when Russia blatantly violated all the previous agreements. Under the basic agreements, the militants had to retreat to a considerable distance from the existing front line. Opposition must be made to carry out the previous agreements, then such microscopic disengagement projects won’t be necessary.

“Another important fact is that Vladimir Putin mostly spoke about humanitarian issues, saying Ukraine should foot all the Russian-occupied territories’ bills. This didn’t work. Petro Poroshenko focused on security. It is hard to imagine how these stands can be arranged in a single memorandum.”

DONBAS PUBLIC OPINION MUST BE CONSIDERED WHEN DRAFTING THE ROAD MAP

Hanna HOPKO, MP, Chairperson, Foreign Affairs Committee of the Verkhovna Rada:

“The Minsk agreements outline approaches to issues such as ceasefire, exchange of POWs, and so on. They do not provide for specific mechanisms or time frames. We also need mutual implementation guarantees and liabilities, considering the bitter experience of the Russian Federation ignoring its obligations and spurring on its aggression. All this must be stipulated in the Road Map. As for the police mission, Ukraine has been discussing the subject for almost a year. Now the big question is whether the OSCE will say yes and what authority this mission will have. Another issue to be resolved is OSCE round-the-clock duty in the conflict area, instead of until 5 p.m., as has been and remains the case.

“The populace has to be kept informed. For want of information, people are getting worried, which is only natural. They don’t know how their personal security will be ensured after the withdrawal of troops and when the militants breach the ceasefire. A special monitoring mission doesn’t envisage local military presence. It’s good this issue has been raised, because previously we were told that we had to pass the local elections bill, then the local thugs would somehow implement it.

“It is important to take into account what the populace has to say on the subject when drafting the Road Map. Also, I’d like to stress that the political clauses of the Minsk agreements will never be implemented without solving the security issue.”

“PUTIN IS WAITING FOR THE RESULTS OF THE U.S. ELECTIONS, AS WELL AS THOSE IN GERMANY AND FRANCE”

Susan STEWART, senior associate, German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP), Berlin:

“More was achieved yesterday at the Normandy format meeting than I had expected. However, these results are only on the rhetorical level so far. We will have to see how they will be translated into practice. Most important is the roadmap on the Minsk agreements. If it can really be worked out within a month and approved by the foreign ministers, this will be a step forward. But because the Russian and Ukrainian sides have had very different opinions on the sequence of the points in the Minsk agreements, I am not confident that a consensus can be reached. The other two points – an armed OSCE mission and the separation of troops in additional areas – have already been on the agenda for some time. Three areas for troop separation were agreed upon at the contact group level previously, and only two of them functioned well. This is an important achievement, but not one that needs to be negotiated at the highest level, even if it is good to have the explicit support of the leaders of the respective states. With regard to an armed OSCE mission, there have been contradictory statements previously from the Russian side. Even if this mission is in principle agreed upon, it is possible for the Russian side to prolong negotiations on its character and mandate indefinitely.

“In my opinion Putin is waiting for the results of the US elections, as well as those in Germany and France next year, to see whether there will be a constellation of leaders with whom it is more favorable for him to negotiate. So, not much can be expected of the Normandy format before then.

“Also, it is important for Western leaders to insist on further reforms in Ukraine. The reform process appears largely stalled and vested interests are acquiring the upper hand. If Ukraine is not successful with key reforms, then its resilience vis-a-vis Russia (and its attractiveness for the West) will be seriously negatively impacted. This will put Ukraine in a difficult position with regard to further negotiations on the situation in the Donbas.”