Boundless Compromise

The Tuzla question has been frozen. Kyiv and Moscow have reached a set of unclear and rather strange compromises that do not serve Ukraine’s national interests. The impression is the Ukrainian premier just gave up Tuzla to Russia during the talks he held with his Russian counterpart on October 24. Moreover, Moscow puts all the blame for the conflict precisely on Kyiv. Viktor Yanukovych promised to withdraw border guards from the island. The Russian leadership in turn pledged to suspend construction of the dam until environmental experts thoroughly examine the necessity of finishing the causeway in the Kerch Strait.

At first glance, everything seems to satisfy both sides. Was it possible to reach a different kind of agreement with Russian officials? Unlikely, which was in principle shown by Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov who characterized Ukraine’s steps as unilateral. In reality, it is the Russian side that unilaterally began building the dam on September 29, while Ukraine’s decision to station a border security force on the island was aimed at protecting its territorial integrity. Mr. Kasyanov’s claim that Kyiv had no right to resort to such action without consulting Moscow because negotiations over the delimitation of borders in the Azov-Kerch water area are still ongoing does not stand up to criticism. Why then did Russia not consult Ukraine about building a dam in such “inland waters,” while Ukraine officially requested Moscow — in three diplomatic notes — to name the coordinates of the causeway’s final point. Russia’s two replies only contained rather vague and obviously false reasons why the dam was being built. What then about other statements which, although at odds with the official version, look more plausible? For example, Chairman of the State Duma’s International Affairs Committee Dmitry Rogozin thinks that the dam should be built in full scope — otherwise, he claims, there will be a danger “to Russia’s national security, when NATO ships will be riding at anchor in the Taganrog roadstead.” A more eloquent comment on Tuzla’s strategic importance for Russia came on October 24 from “an informed source in one of the Russian ministries” to Interfax, “Whoever holds the strip holds the strait.” It is difficult to deny this. Yet, according to all bilateral documents (the reader may have read more than once the long list of agreements and accords in The Day), Tuzla is Ukrainian territory. Unless, of course, it is given away within the framework of the Year of Russia in Ukraine. Even a cursory analysis of the Russian prime minister’s statements shows that what the two premiers decided over the Tuzla imbroglio is far from a compromise. First, according to Kasyanov, Russia believes that the Azov-Kerch water area problem should be addressed the way it is stipulated in the bilateral agreement on borders. “Under the agreements, these are inland waters of Ukraine and Russia, and all questions of water territory usage should be addressed bilaterally within the framework of bilateral agreements,” Interfax quotes Kasyanov as saying. Perhaps the prime minister meant the state borders treaty signed last January in Kyiv, rather than an agreement. But this document is still to be ratified.

Secondly, Kasyanov maintains, “Our environmentalists and experts must examine whether it is necessary to complete this project.” What environmentalists did he mean? Who will select them? Is it up to ecologists to address the problem of dam construction? The more so that the idea is to link it with precisely a Ukrainian island if one follows the logic of the documents signed in the Soviet times. Another question: can the “suspension” of the causeway be considered a compromise if it is still being reinforced and is just a hundred or so meters from the Ukrainian border? In the absence of a deterrent force (until recently, the Ukrainian border guards on Tuzla Island), Russian builders will find it easy to reach the border in a day’s time. After all, they put up a more-than- three-kilometer-long causeway in just three weeks. Thirdly, the Russian premier said, “Should the Ukrainian side’s arguments get the upper hand, we will be able to draw the border precisely along this spit.” It will be recalled that the Tuzla, spit has not existed for almost eighty years since it was washed out. What still remains is Tuzla Spit Island given to the Crimea in 1941. What do Kasyanov’s words mean then? Is Russia preparing to draw the border on Ukrainian territory? Fourth, Kasyanov considers it an “error” that Krasnodar authorities failed to notify the Russian government they had begun to implement a nature-conservation project to restore Tuzla Spit. “I consider this an error. They should have notified the central government and then — via the foreign ministry — Ukraine,” he said. Is Russia’s central government in danger if it is unaware of what the federation’s regional authorities are doing on the border?

Viktor Yanukovych presented some well-balanced arguments — so well-balanced that, judging by the above quotations, the Russian side never admitted that its actions were faulty. In particular, the prime minister said Tuzla Island is an integral part of Ukrainian territory, while Ukraine’s actions were provoked by a unilateral decision of the Krasnodar regional administration. Asked if these talks can be considered the final solution of the Tuzla problem, Mr. Yanukovych said the decision made it possible to form a group of experts to address the existing problems. “They (problems — Author) emerged not yesterday, they result from imperfect legislation in both Russia and Ukraine,” he said, adding, “We froze the situation as it is today. There can be no other solution.” In addition, Yanukovych said Ukraine still insists that the border in the Azov-Kerch water area should be drawn not only on the seabed but also on the water surface.

The only bright side in this unbounded compromise is that, in theory, Russia does not rule out drawing the sea border in accordance with the Ukrainian stand. Really? The situation will perhaps be clarified by Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov who is scheduled to visit Kyiv on October 30.