Second front…

Russia’s aggression against Ukraine is multifaceted. The Kremlin has been carefully preparing it for a long time. So, it is not only about the ever-growing number of tanks and career officers in Crimea and the Donbas. Russia is marshaling troops and hundreds of equipment pieces, including mobile missile systems, tanks, and artillery, at a temporary base near the border with Ukraine, which a Reuters correspondent photographed past week. The Russian aggression also has other – informational, diplomatic, and corruption-related – fronts.

The Minsk agreements are part of Russia’s plan that in fact urges Ukraine to fund the Donbas’s occupied territories, hold elections there, which means legalization of bandits and terrorists, amend the Ukrainian Constitution, etc. “The developments after the signing of the Minsk agreements prove that we need an effective mechanism to implement them. We must make Russia sit down at the negotiating table and make sure that troops are withdrawn and the border is blocked under OSCE monitoring,” President Poroshenko said last Thursday, opening the 8th Kyiv Security Forum.

Yes, the Ukrainian leadership has repeatedly stated that the Minsk agreements can only be observed if fire is ceased, the Russian troops are withdrawn, and Kyiv reestablishes control over the Ukrainian-Russian border. But Russia and terrorists do not cease fire and are not going to withdraw their troops and equipment – on the contrary, they go on increasing their number in the Donbas. So, how can control over the border be regained in these conditions?

On May 28 Ukraine marked Border Guard Day. The State Border Guard Service of Ukraine (DPSU) feels not so good today after being in fact controlled by the Lytvyn clan for about10 years. Its first chief, in 2003-14, was Mykola Lytvyn, the brother of the current Member of Parliament Volodymyr Lytvyn. In that period, the DPSU was often implicated in corruption scandals. Today, this service has a difficult problem to deals with – it is supposed not only to do its duty at all segments of the border, but also to repel the Russian troops in the east. Last Thursday President Poroshenko visited a mobile border guard unit in Kyiv and extended his holiday greetings to the servicemen. “Let me thank you for such a strong defense of our country,” he said to those present.

MATVEYEV KURGAN, RUSSIA, NEAR THE RUSSIAN-UKRAINIAN BORDER IN ROSTOV OBLAST

But the problem is not only in the border. The corridors of power are full of chat about a bicameral parliament. It will be recalled that the Constitutional Commission is now working on changes to the Constitution. What will Ukraine gain from a bicameral parliament, for this is typical of federal countries? We are going to decentralize the system of government, not to federalize the country, aren’t we? Moreover, the latter is a continuous demand from the Kremlin, the aggressor. It has long got accustomed to demanding that Ukraine comply with certain provisions, but it absolutely ignores its own commitments. And in the case of the Minsk agreements, Moscow has also won over Berlin and Paris. Now the West, in the person of Germany and France, is also demanding that Ukraine observe the Minsk agreements.

How can we avoid being drawn into the Russian scenario? What can we do to oppose Moscow’s second front?

“WE SHOULD WIN QUALITATIVELY – BY MEANS OF TECHNOLOGIES, MOTIVATION, HIGHER MORALE, AND A BETTER TRAINING LEVEL OF THE PERSONNEL”

Ihor KABANENKO, Admiral (in the reserve), Deputy Defense Minister of Ukraine in 2014, military expert:

“In my view, the Kremlin continues to take a hybrid approach to a wave-like conflict – the waves of more and less active actions are coming one after the other. In other words, Russia is implementing its further plans. The ratio of combat and non-combat actions in this war – 4:1 – means a hidden format, an emphasis on a nonmilitary confrontation aimed at weakening Ukraine. Military force is added at a favorable moment to consolidate a position. Russia’s nonmilitary ways comprise the ‘Minsk format’ of negotiations and other – diplomatic, informational, etc., – methods. Moments like the present one see an increasing role of information warfare because the goal is to destabilize the situation as much as possible, create a managed chaos, and then use it in a required direction. Then this destabilized situation is presented as our domestic troubles, while the fact that these were brought in from the outside is hushed up.

“The idea of Ukraine’s federalization, which Russia is trying to foist on us on the pretext of the Donbas situation, is not new and was spelled out a long time ago. Russia is taking a number of measures to put this idea into practice. Using indirect informational impact as a hybrid war element, they lay the groundwork for this kind of war and then engage in it by means of rapid actions.

“In my opinion, Russia is using the ‘Minsk format’ to worsen the domestic situation in Ukraine. On the one hand, they are saying Ukraine must restore the region’s infrastructure, industry, etc., but, on the other, they are deliberately ruining it and creating chaos. In this situation, Russia has no economic commitments to the Donbas.

“As for the West’s attitude to the implementation of the Minsk agreements, it is not a simple matter. They are taking a cautious approach for fear of irking Russia. It is a trivial defensive attitude that involves grabbing every opportunity for a peaceful settlement of the conflict. But it will be difficult to resist the aggressor unless we accept the risks and up the ante. Obviously, the Kremlin is playing it big, and we should respond adequately. We can see that every time we reach some agreements with Russia – on a ceasefire and so on – it does not observe them. The past few days have seen serious battles in the Donbas – this indicates that Russia continues its hybrid war to weaken, divide, and ruin Ukraine. For a successful and prosperous Ukraine with a liberal economy and modern-day Western standards poses a threat to the existence of today’s Russia which rests on the foundations of ‘state capitalism.’ This is why it uses a hybrid war that includes hidden methods of influence. They use the idea of federalization to weaken us, and we must be aware of this.

“So, if the conflict is to be settled on the basis of ceasefire agreements, there must be a format, of a much higher level than the current one, for reacting to violations. It is a hard task, but we must still motivate Russia to do so. I think we should seek ways to motivate, not force, the Kremlin to deescalate the situation. Otherwise, even the OSCE has no mechanisms to ensure ceasefire and control over the border.

“As for the military situation in the region, there still remains the danger of Russia’s new intervention. We can see Russia holding air force and air defense exercises, and a huge military grouping is on full alert near our borders. This means that tension is going up rather than down. What is the point of starting the car engine if you know that it will run idle and the car will not move an inch? Either the vehicle must move ahead or you should switch off the engine and put the machine into the garage. Now the engine of the Russian military machine has been started. But it is also very dangerous to Russia itself, for it also runs the risk of suffering enormous human losses. In other words, all this is also ruining Russia from inside and boosting domestic contradictions. In any case, the war will end some day, and we will have to make Herculean efforts to restore many things – therefore, we must take a sober attitude to this. The conflict may spread to other parts of the continent because it has a civilizational dimension and may be precursor to serious cataclysms in Europe.

“Ukraine must be prepared to defend itself and always strengthen its defense and security capability. At the same time, the Ministry of Defense, the General Staff, and other military institutions should pay more attention to the application of cutting-edge technologies in the defense sector. In the current situation, we can only win by means of technologies. The USSR-era quantitative approach claimed 60 million human lives in the past century. So, we must win qualitatively – by means of technologies, motivation, higher morale, and a better training level of the personnel. This will involve hard work, including changes in the culture and mentality of the establishment, which is also extremely topical, and we should have done this yesterday, not today.”

“OUR CONCESSIONS TO RUSSIA IN THE QUESTIONS OF UKRAINIAN STATEHOOD WILL ONLY ENCOURAGE THAT COUNTRY TO TAKE FURTHER AGGRESSIVE ACTIONS”

Volodymyr VASYLENKO, international law expert, professor:

“The Russian nonmilitary scenario, aimed at weakening and breaking up Ukraine, far exceeds the limits of what is going on in the Donbas. Russia will try to do its utmost to achieve its dream – not so much to annex Crimea and other territories as to finally destroy Ukraine as national unit and subject of international law. Ordinary people, leaders of all political parties, and the political leadership of Ukraine must be fully aware of this. All that is going on now is an intermediary step Russia is taking to achieve its ultimate goal. Therefore, any concessions in the key questions of Ukraine’s identity, territorial integrity, inviolability of borders, and political unity are inadmissible. Even though the West and Russia are pressing us, we will not solve the problem in this way. Western countries must know that our concessions to Russia in the questions of Ukrainian statehood will only encourage that country to take further aggressive actions. Demonstrating firmness in defending our vitally important interests must be the groundwork that we lay for any negotiations with anybody.

“Our leadership is saying that everything should be solved by diplomatic methods, but it is a naive dream because you can only solve a problem diplomatically when there are two equal partners who wish to reach the same result and can make concessions in the matters that have nothing to do with vitally important interests. But in this case the aggressor state is using diplomacy from the position of strength to force us to make the concessions that will result in ruination. It is inadmissible, and if we are concerned about our future, we should never opt for this kind of concessions. We should only make deals on a par and on the basis of the existing fundamental principles of international law, on which the international law and order rests. But Russia has broken this setup, so what exclusively diplomatic measures can be in question? Yes, we should show that we are willing and ready to solve any problems peacefully, but not at the expense of selling out our national interests, which can cause Ukraine to lose its statehood.

“In general, the Minsk agreements is a diplomatic trap into which Ukraine got and which Russia is trying to take advantage of in order to impose its decisions on our state, which poses a threat to Ukraine because this lays the groundwork for further destabilization. The Minsk agreements are a political deal, not an international treaty. Any agreement must be viewed as a whole and observed likewise. One party may not force the other one to observe only the provisions of this document that are favorable to it. If the agreement envisions elections in some areas of the Donbas, they must be held – but only after foreign troops and Russia-controlled armed formations have been withdrawn, control has been established over the border, and conditions have been created for holding elections under the Ukrainian law. Ukraine is prepared for the presence of the OSCE, peacekeepers, and international observers who would monitor the overall election process.

“Russia also took a commitment to pull out its troops from Ukraine (the irregular formations of mercenaries are also Russian armed forces, for they were formed and are being armed and controlled by Russia). If they want the situation to be settled, they should pull out all the military formations, restore law and order, organize elections, and reform local government bodies, on which the Constitutional Commission’s (CC’s) working group, in charge of decentralization, is focusing now. The question, now under discussion, is to introduce general norms under which people are to be vested with more rights, irrespective of the region they live in.

“As for the idea of a bicameral parliament, which Ihor Yukhnovsky has publicly proposed, we have long been discussing it, and I explained to him why it is wrong to do so. Ukraine is a unitary state, and there is no radical difference between the regions. Therefore, there is no need in one more chamber, for this setup is typical for federal states. The CC is not even broaching this issue.

“To satisfy Russia’s unlawful whims, which are tantamount to interference into Ukraine’s internal affairs, it is necessary to revise the entire Constitution, including Chapter 3. It has been agreed not to touch on Chapters 3, 13, and 14, for this requires a certain procedure, and it is out of the CC’s competence. To revise them, MPs should hold two sessions and approve changes by a simple and constitutional majority. Then there must be a national referendum. But this will never occur. So, it is groundless to expect the CC to do something wrong. As for the occupied Donbas’s status, it will not be so far legalized in the Constitution. The Verkhovna Rada will pass the laws that define these territories as occupied.”

“ANY ATTEMPTS TO EVEN SIMULATE A FEDERAL SETUP IN UKRAINE, SUCH AS, FOR EXAMPLE, A BICAMERAL PARLIAMENT, WILL BE EXTREMELY HARMFUL”

Mykhailo BASARAB, political scientist, civic initiative “More”:

“From the very outset, Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine was only the armed tip of a large-scale political campaign. I have never believed that it is very important for Russia to seize by force a part of the Ukrainian territory. A few districts of the Donbas are far from what Putin is striving for. He pursues a much more far-reaching goal, and his intentions were obvious from the very beginning. He planned to control the entire Ukraine and hold it by the short hairs through these eastern districts. So, it is clear that this armed face-off is just a complement to the strategy of destroying Ukraine’s political sovereignty. Plans like this are nurtured for more than a year, a decade, or, maybe, a century.

“What is going on in the Donbas is aimed at imposing a certain agenda on Ukraine. It comprises several main points. Firstly, it is to prevent Ukraine from integrating into the European Union and the North Atlantic Alliance. Secondly, it is to foist a federal setup on Ukraine and, hence, to weaken it as an integrated political entity. Thirdly, it is to segmentalize Ukraine into two groups – Ukrainian-speaking and Russian-speaking Ukrainians, which will keep up a never-ending confrontation inside society. All this serves just one purpose – to prove Ukraine’s inadequacy as a state and to weaken our state for many years, turning it into Russia’s buffer.

“Unfortunately, there are people who play with the ideas that fit in with Russia’s visions. For example, Mr. Ihor Yukhnovsky suggests a bicameral parliament, and Mr. Bohdan Hawrylyshyn is trying to prove the necessity of a federal system in Ukraine, referring to the experience of Switzerland. I think these initiatives are not only ill-timed, but also harmful for Ukraine as a state. We cannot be measured by the same yardstick with Switzerland because, luckily for the Swiss, they do not have such an aggressive neighbor as Russia. Besides, they have a totally different history of nation and state formation than the Ukrainians do. So, any attempts to even simulate a federal setup in Ukraine or introduce the attributes of a federal state, such as, for example, a bicameral parliament, will be extremely harmful. I strongly hope that if some people come up with the intentions and plans to introduce this kind of elements of federalism in Ukraine, there will be enough well-respected patriots in the Constitutional Commission who will warn society in good time about these attempts. At most, this kind of attempts must be thwarted. But if the premier, the president, or somebody else, who is involved in this process, tries to squeeze into the new Constitution some extremely dangerous provisions which can provoke Ukraine’s ruination, they will face a proper reaction from the public.

“In the current situation, we must not agree on any compromises with the Russian aggressor and its puppets in eastern Ukraine. In the history of its relations with Russia, our state has been coming to compromises all too often, and we finally saw that these compromises had produced no good results. For it is futile to appeal to a predator and an aggressor. For this reason, trying to appease Putin with a federal setup, two official languages, and a ‘special status’ for some regions will be an abortive attempt. The Kremlin’s only goal is to destroy the State of Ukraine, a self-sufficient sovereign institution. Therefore, any concessions will only be to the detriment of us and to the benefit of Putin’s plans.”