Vladimir Putin will be let out of his isolation in Australia

Australia is actually engulfed in a scandal because of the government’s decision to invite the Russian president to the G20 summit, which will be held in Brisbane next month. On the one hand, Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who is known for his sharp criticism of the Kremlin’s policies, especially after pro-Russian separatists shot down a Malaysian plane over eastern Ukraine, has defended Putin’s right to take part in the summit. Meanwhile, opposition leader Bill Shorten has criticized the decision and said that the government had “gone from talking tough to trying to pretend Putin coming here is not an  issue Australians are concerned about.” Is there a reasonable explanation for Abbott’s decision to let the master of the Kremlin out of diplomatic isolation launched after Russia annexed Crimea and openly invaded eastern Ukraine? The Day asked former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Volodymyr Ohryzko, who had attended an international conference in Australia a month ago, to comment on the matter.

“It is true that there are certain special rules of conduct applied within international structures. If Putin’s visit to Australia was a bilateral affair, I think it would not happen. It is obvious from looking at the highly reasonable stance of the Australian government, which has been repeatedly and publicly brought to the attention of the world community. It is a different game when it comes to meetings of international organization that operate according to rules somewhat different from those that would govern a bilateral visit. We are dealing here with the meeting of representatives from 20 countries, and to ensure that the organizer had the formal right not to accept a member of the G20, it would be necessary to     get permission from every other member. I understand that such permission has not been obtained, so Australia cannot take the responsibility for withdrawing the invitation for a member’s representative, in this case Putin.

“This is certainly not a positive development when viewed in terms of diplomatic blockade, which has developed around Russia by now, but on the other hand, I think that at the G20 summit, Russia will be told firmly and publicly: either you change your course, or your economy will fall out of G20, not to mention G50.

“Let us draw a positive conclusion from this fact, and just wish the participants of this meeting to have enough courage. My impression is that most G20 members have enough courage to tell Putin directly and unambiguously: the continuation of his current course will mean the Russian economy beginning to crack at the seams soon. This, I think, will be the main result of the talks in Australia.”

What do you think about the first reaction of the West to president Putin’s decision to withdraw 17,000 Russian troops from the border with Ukraine? In particular, the Special Coordinator for Russia Policy of the Federal Government of Germany Gernot Erler told Neue Osnabruecker Zeitung that it was “an important step in the right direction,” showing that “Russia does not want to further aggravate the conflict with the West.”

“I do not think that Putin has changed the essence of his policy towards Ukraine. He will still try to     take what he wanted. That is, to make at least part of Ukrainian territory dependent on Russia, to carve this so-called Novorossia out of a larger or smaller part of Ukraine’s territory. Thus, I would not believe these steps by Putin, especially since his plan of a Novorossian blitzkrieg has failed. He did not expect that even virtually unarmed Ukrainian soldiers would fight so tenaciously, inflicting really huge losses on Putin’s forces. What we have now is just an attempt on his part to get a breathing space needed to regroup forces, bring up reserves, stage another wave of anti-Ukrainian and anti-Western hysteria within Russia, and then go further. We should not let our guard down, but should look at things from a strategic, not tactical perspective.”

“RUSSIAN GUARANTEES ARE ALWAYS WORTHLESS”

That same Erler places great hopes on the meeting between President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko and his Russian counterpart Putin, to be held in Milan on October 16, and transferring of the peace negotiations to a bilateral level. Are there any grounds for hopes that something can be resolved during this meeting on Italian soil?

“Erler, indeed, hopes that everything will be resolved at a low cost for Germany. However, let us turn our attention to another fact: all the so-called Petersburg Dialogs, to be held in Sochi, will be ignored by Angela Merkel. I think it sends a very serious signal to Russia and Putin personally. I do not think that Erler’s statements, seeing as he represents a different political force from that of the chancellor, will affect the position of the German government.

“We in Ukraine can hardly expect some extremely positive results, given that the so-called Minsk Agreements have mostly remained on paper. We see now that Russia is violating its obligations. Only a very naive person may believe anything that Putin will tell Poroshenko. Therefore, it seems to me that both sides will play their game, keeping their cards close to their chests. Thus, based on my own rather large diplomatic experience, I do not believe Russian statements, knowing that their promises are often just a way to lull a partner into a false sense of security or just deceive them. I doubt that those agreements, even if achieved, will give any real guarantees to us. Russian guarantees are always worthless.”

There has been an article published recently, entitled “Shocked by Ukraine Violence, NATO Prepares to Face Down Putin.” It describes the alliance’s recent Anaconda exercise, which took place on the soil of NATO allies that border Ukraine. The article concludes with a quote of German General Hans-Lothar Domroese, who admitted that Ukraine was testing NATO. “The invasion of Crimea was a wake-up call,” he said. “We had been too optimistic, convinced that such violations could no longer happen. Suddenly we noticed that Russia has an ugly face.” May we say that such steps and actions on NATO’s part after the alliance’s summit are becoming a factor in Putin’s calculations?

“It is good to see European politicians and generals finally coming to understand that Russia really has an ugly face. After all, they lived surrounded by an illusion that it was a wonderful face, beautiful and clean. Mikhail Gorbachev used to say once upon a time that the USSR’s outward appearance should look beautiful and clean. However, it is now as dirty as always, because this is just the essence of this policy.

“It is good that NATO has started talking business. My only issue with it is the very slow speed of this rethink, as it faces a real and present danger today. I would like to see NATO politicians and generals to wake up faster than what we are seeing now.”

Does Ukraine need to hold a referendum on NATO membership at the moment? It is known that some parties running in this election, including Batkivshchyna, are in favor of it. However, former Minister of Foreign Affairs Andrii Deshchytsia opposes it and believes that advocacy and public awareness campaigns to familiarize society with NATO are more pressing tasks now.

“For me, it is far more important at the moment that the vast majority of Ukrainians have realized that the greatest danger to Ukraine comes not from NATO countries, but from Russia. This is actually the crucial referendum that has been held in the minds of Ukrainian citizens. If we look at the statistics, it is clear that we, the Ukrainians, are now supporting pro-European and pro-Atlantic course.

“Since NATO has not currently opened to us its doors and invited us to join the club, under these conditions, a membership referendum is likely to exacerbate the tense debate which we do not need at this stage.”