Germany initiates another Geneva

It has been only two weeks since Geneva agreements on the regulation of the Ukrainian crisis, but Germany convenes the second Geneva conference. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier declared this intention on Sunday after telephone negotiations on the issues with the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Catherine Ashton, the US Secretary of State John Kerry, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, and the OSCE representatives.

Steinmeier emphasized that a clear agreement must be the goal of this meeting, which would put an end to the conflict and let shift the events into a plane of political decisions. “Any procrastination in the current situation is irresponsible, since it will lead to new victims,” said the German official.

Ukraine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has not yet commented on the initiative by the chief of the German diplomacy.

It is known that the previous agreement, which has been reached in Geneva on April 17 and signed by Kerry, Ashton, Lavrov, and Andrii Deshchytsia, was totally ignored by Russia. Even though it had to do everything to de-escalate the situation in eastern Ukraine and take its troops away from our borders. Moscow did not do this, it just criticized the West and Ukraine, which fulfilled Geneva agreements, according to the Western officials.

A question arises: if Geneva agreements were not implemented, what is the point of holding another conference on the Ukrainian crisis?

Assistant professor of the political science department at the Kyiv Mohyla Academy Andreas UMLAND stated the following on the matter: “If the conference will be conducted again without simultaneous substantive pressure on Russia, it will be as unproductive as the last agreement. There is an illusion that more talks can lead to a fundamental change in the situation. Yet, diplomacy has already been heavily used in the past when the situation was less tense. However, the increased tension reduces the effectiveness of diplomacy. But it may still be worth trying.”

The Day addressed Ukrainian and foreign experts with a request to comment upon Steinmeier’s initiative.

Volodymyr OHRYZKO, former foreign minister of Ukraine:

“Any negotiations are better than a war. But if we sensibly assess what the Russian side is doing, some kind of breakthrough should not be expected. I think the effectiveness of the meeting will be equal to the first Geneva conference.

“As for Steinmeier’s initiative, diplomats must demonstrate they are busy with something and are working on some issues. But we must be realistic and understand that there is nothing to talk about with the Russia of today.

“On the other hand, Germany is interested in preserving its economic ties with Russia because it has invested in Russia’s economy too much, and the sanctions, that were supposed to be real, will certainly have a negative impact on German economy as well. That is why Germany is objectively interested in reaching an agreement. But I doubt whether this can be done via negotiations with the incumbent Russian government. If Germans have hope, it is up for them to act.

“Negotiations between Obama and Merkel in Washington, D.C. and their statement concerning the implementation of sanctions against Russia if the situation in Ukraine is further destabilized by it reminds of a serious 225th final warning. But in the current circumstances, it is not unnecessary. However, the West should have taken resolute steps long ago instead of warning Russia. As we see from the course of our anti-terrorist operation, Russia reacts extremely quickly when it feels the power. Words have no effect on Moscow, and the international community must draw a conclusion out of it. And the conclusion is very simple: Russia only understands the language of force.

“It is obvious that Russia seeks to disrupt the May 25 election, because it will give an opportunity to speculate on the so-called illegitimacy of the Ukrainian government. Undoubtedly, taking the situation in eastern Ukraine under control would put an end to the conversations about the illegitimacy of the government. Unfortunately, our government does not demonstrate great determination, which was used again by separatists and pro-Russian groups in the east of Ukraine. This definitely influences the international situation around Ukraine. The faster and firmer we put a period in the ‘conversation’ with terrorists, the sooner Moscow understands they cannot play with Ukraine like that. But since the indecision is present, it spurs the Kremlin’s appetite to bigger and more impudent provocations against Ukraine.”

Stefan MEISTER, senior research fellow for political affairs, the European Council on International Relations, Brussels:

“To be honest, I think an international format makes only sense, when all participants have the interest to find a solution for the conflict. Unless Russia doesn’t have the interest, I am very skeptical whether a second round will put an end to the conflict. Russia’s goals at the moment with the provocations in eastern Ukraine are: to show that the current Ukrainian government is unable to control the country and provide security, to prevent elections on May 25, and to improve its own bargaining position towards the EU and US to decide about the future of Ukraine (federalization of the country is the Russian official goal). If the EU and the US are willing to talk with Moscow about the future constitution of Ukraine, Russia is willing to sit on one table. But only under Russian conditions. But I think, for that it is too early and without the involvement of the Ukrainian government, this should not be possible. So, I understand Steinmeier, that he wants to find a solution through the internationalization of the conflict, but Russia’s interest is not to stabilize Ukraine but get the limited sovereignty of Ukraine recognized.”

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

“I think that a second Geneva conference could only be successful if it resulted in an agreement in which clear commitments were made, and it would need to be clear which party is making which commitment. All parties should be required to commit themselves to certain actions (or non-actions), so that no one can simply sit on the sidelines after the agreement is concluded and criticize implementation by the other parties without having to be active himself. Another requirement would be that the parties making commitments are committing to do (or not do) things that they can actually achieve, i.e. for which they have the required influence (and admit to having it), and the commitments should not contradict each other. If these requirements are not fulfilled, then it would be better to end the conference without an agreement than to have a very vague agreement as was the case before. Such an agreement causes more problems than it resolves.”

Lilia SHEVTSOVA, leading research fellow, Moscow Carnegie Center:

“The statement made by Germany’s Foreign Minister Steinmeier completely fits into the approach towards the Ukrainian crisis that was developed by Berlin. In short, this approach can be defined in the following way: ‘We will emphasize the dialog with the Kremlin. We will not drive Putin into a corner. We will try to convince him of the need to come back to common sense.’ Instead of sanctions towards Moscow, Berlin has preferred the ‘threats of sanctions’ since the very beginning.

“But at the same time, both Berlin and the West in general have tried to escape the clear definition of the ‘red line,’ the Kremlin’s crossing of which would make the sanctions against it inevitable.

“The sad irony is that the Kremlin has its own definition of the ‘red line’ for the West (if Ukraine receives an invitation to NATO, etc.), but the West’s definition of this notion is intentionally vague. The sanctions have been associated with Russia’s open intervention to Ukraine. Western leaders have basically ignored the possibility of other ways to destabilize Ukraine.

“Today Steinmeier is virtually trying to implement a ‘diplomatic approach’ which was agreed by Merkel and Obama during their last meeting in Washington. The point of it is to try once more to stop Russia by using diplomatic methods and bring the OSCE into the picture by entrusting it with keeping control over the upcoming election. And only in case Russia tries to disrupt them openly, new sanctions will be implemented. The proposal to start new meetings in Geneva fits into this format of ‘let us wait.’ Obviously, Merkel talked Obama out of imposing new sanctions in the near future. Yes, now the sanctions do not conform to the Russia’s troops crossing the border. But the criteria for the implementation of these sanctions are still unclear. For example, were the events in Odesa influenced from the outside in order to destabilize the situation? Or was it a clash of internal forces? Try and prove it!

“I do not think that Berlin’s ‘negotiation initiatives’ will lead to the solution of the crisis. Moscow will try to shake the situation in Ukraine until the election day, May 25. Besides, pro-Russian forces are obviously acting here, which can hardly be restrained.

“New Geneva meetings will become the Kremlin’s platform for accusing everyone else. Moreover, Moscow can now say: we do not control the pro-Russian forces! Just as Dmitry Peskov said: we do not know what to do with the new situation!”