“The West must impose additional sanctions”

Today one can well conclude that the Berlin meeting of the leaders of Ukraine, Germany, and France sans the president of Russia had a symbolic meaning. One can rather say that it was a gesture with which Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande expressed their support on Ukraine’s Independence Day to Petro Poroshenko, who is trying to implement the Minsk accords virtually single-handedly. Indeed, neither Russia nor the Russia-backed militias in Donbas do a thing to implement the accords concluded in Minsk on February 12, even though Russia’s President Vladimir Putin personally honored them with his presence.

Obviously, it was expected (especially on the part of Ukraine) that this meeting, in the so-called Normandy format minus Russia, would help de-escalate the situation in Donbas.

Conversely, Merkel and Hollande’s goal was to preserve and consolidate the Normandy format, and implement the Minsk accords. “The objective of these talks is to consolidate and strengthen the ‘Normandy format,’” said Merkel. Poroshenko echoed in saying: “I am convinced that we do not need any new formats.”

Also, the German chancellor emphasized that “It is necessary to do everything for the implementation of the Ceasefire Agreement and ensure free access for the OSCE mission.” Merkel also remarked that the trilateral contact group for the settlement in Donbas should continue working in the current format. According to her, it is the Minsk accords on settlement in Donbas, concluded last February that “must lay the foundations of what might lead to the peaceful development in Ukraine.”

Merkel made no secret of the fact that implementation of the Minsk accords poses problems. The first such problem mentioned by her is the “incomplete ceasefire” and the resulting loss of life. Secondly, it is impeding the work of the OSCE monitoring mission and attacks on its representatives in Donbas, as well as impeding the work of drones. The chancellor diplomatically omitted to mention the culprits.

Poroshenko must be given his due: at a joint press conference he named Russia the aggressor and emphasized that “it is the Russian Federation and Russia-backed militants that pose the only threat for restoration of peace and stability in the region.” He reminded of the importance of resuming control over the Ukraine-Russia border which, according to him, serves as an entrance for “Russian army units and weapons.” Ukraine’s president also emphasized that the participants of the meeting had discussed the severe threat from sham elections, scheduled for October and November in the occupied districts of Donbas, which do not comply with legal requirements.

The Day asked its experts to comment on the results of the meeting of Poroshenko, Merkel, and Hollande, and share their ideas as to what could be done by the West to force Russia and the militants it supports to implement the Minsk accords.

“IT IS BECOMING MORE AND MORE OBVIOUS TO THE WESTERN PARTNERS THAT RUSSIA’S AGGRESSION IS THE MAIN CAUSE OF THE SITUATION IN CRIMEA AND DONBAS”

Volodymyr OHRYZKO, ex foreign minister of Ukraine, Kyiv:

“In my view, the positive aspect of this meeting is in that it is becoming more and more obvious to the Western partners that the Russian Federation’s aggression is the main cause of the situation in Crimea and Donbas. Another positive thing is the truly civilizational format of the meeting. In other words, it was a meeting of representatives of the nations that have chosen certain principles and norms regulating their existence and development. Namely, the norms of international law, mutual understanding and support. These are the norms of co-existence of partners and friends, not enemies. It is important, even though now the uniqueness of the Normandy format be emphasized: it is one of a kind, there will never be another like this one, etc. But I would put a period here instead of a full stop. By the way, in our president’s speech it was mentioned that as of today, the Normandy format is adequate to the goals, which are put before it. However, after today tomorrow will come, and then the day after tomorrow. So, I would not close this door and consider the Normandy format as something perpetual.

“I have already said, and I will reiterate that, in my opinion, our side of the negotiation table should be represented by civilized nations and their structures as our guarantors: the United States, Great Britain, France, as well as those nations which play an important role in ensuring the security of the European continent: Germany, Poland and, possibly, the Baltic States, NATO as a security structure, and the European Union as a structure likewise jeopardized by Russia’s current policy. On the opposite side of the table should sit the nation, which despises and sabotages the norms of civilized co-existence of countries and nations, i.e. the Russian Federation. This format, in one or another form or composition, will be considerably more productive than the attempts of some (in Germany, by the way) to speak about the impossibility of building a future security system without Russia. I think that with such Russia we will really never build any security systems. It is crucial that this message is received and read in Europe’s leading capitals. Then we will be talking about real politics, not about political fantasies.”

Is it really necessary to consolidate the Minsk format, like Merkel emphasized, and ensure that it is respected by Russia and the militants it backs?

“The thesis concerning the consolidation of the Minsk format is good, no one will contest it. But it is just words that ‘it must be done,’ they are not corroborated by the mechanism which theoretically exists, but is actually always shoved to the background. This mechanism should consist in intensifying the impact on Russia via measures, which will force it to react to what is going on around. That is, via sanctions on all scales, levels, and volumes. And when all those tools are used together and simultaneously, then Russia will realize that it must implement the agreements which it has signed. Until that moment it is worthless to expect any changes in Russia’s policies.”

There is a view, communicated to The Day by a Ukrainian diplomat off the record, that the goal of the Berlin meeting was to remove the burden of the Ukrainian question off next year’s political agenda (there is an election in the USA in 2016, and in France in 2017, and Hollande needs to score a success). By the way, Germany is holding an election in 2017. What do you say to it?

“That is exactly the job of Ukraine’s diplomats and leaders of the state: to make sure that this scenario is never realized, and it takes telephone talks on a daily basis, visits of our diplomats abroad to the highest offices of Europe’s leading countries on a daily basis, and getting the message across to European and American decision-makers on a daily basis. Then this scenario, which would be fatal for Ukraine, will be out of the question.”

You must have read a recent interview by Henry Kissinger who believes that the West must take into account Russia’s interest in Ukraine, and heard the statement of the former FRG foreign minister Genscher who thinks that the West must offer Russia a hand, cancel the sanctions, and start a dialog. How should one react to such statements of the veterans of American and German diplomacy, respectively? Is it possible to say that they understand the real situation in our country?

“In my opinion, this is merely the inertia of thinking. And it is an objective phenomenon. Unfortunately, here we do not see or hear anything new. Objectively, this should retreat to the background. I think that living on in illusion today would mean jeopardizing the security of one’s own country. It is a delusion that Russia can be persuaded, perfected, and democratized. These politicians (and not only they) have been living with this delusion for many, many years, and this is where they focused their efforts.

“Sometimes it seemed that they were close to success. But this is all a past story, and it is not working today. We have to face the truth and understand what is really going on in the Russian Federation. Not political fantasies, but Russia’s actual steps must be analyzed. One must ask oneself a simple question: is it possible to live safely with such Russia? The answer is obvious: no. That is why such decisions must be passed which would ensure the security of each individual nation, as well as collective security.”

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

“All three parties to the meeting in Berlin emphasized that they are still committed to the Minsk agreements. However, the reality is that these agreements are not being implemented. The main problem as I see it is that Russia is not interested in withdrawing its support for the separatists in the Donbas. Probably the most effective way to strengthen the Minsk format would be to put greater pressure on Russia by increasing sanctions and thereby heightening the costs Russia has to pay for its support of the separatists. However, since without a significant escalation of the fighting by Russia there will be no agreement within the EU to increase the sanctions, it is likely that things will continue more or less as they are in the coming weeks, unless and until Russian behavior changes.”

John HERBST, former US Ambassador to Ukraine, member of the Atlantic Council; Washington, D.C.:

“The meeting served the useful purpose of letting Moscow know that there are limits to Europe’s patience with the Kremlin’s aggression in Ukraine. The uptick in violence recently is testing those limits. This meeting might persuade the Kremlin to ratchet down the violence a bit. But it will not be enough to persuade Moscow to actually fulfill its Minsk obligations, which would help Kyiv restore its control throughout the region. To achieve that objective, the West would need to impose additional sanctions for the Kremlin’s ongoing violations of Minsk II and raise the military cost of Kremlin aggression by providing arms to Ukraine.”