Leonid KRAVCHUK: “Russia is the aggressor. It must act as a party in the conflict”
A day does not pass without talking about the necessity of negotiations. Geneva, Weimar, Minsk… We have heard about all these possible formats before, but it was reiterated during German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier’s visit to Kyiv and Moscow, where he had meetings with the presidents of both countries.
But the fact is that the war is still going on, and Ukrainians die in it every day. Russia pulls its military equipment and troops to the border with Ukraine on a daily basis, and directly sends its forces into eastern Ukraine.
“An undeclared war is going on. We are being attacked. Today our territory is occupied by 40,000 of well-equipped soldiers,” said President Petro Poroshenko’s advisor and head of the Committee for Intelligence under the President of Ukraine Ihor Smeshko during the Tiger Conference in Kyiv.
The bottom line is that we have an annexed Crimea and an occupied part of Donbas. Putin imposed his game and virtually dragged Europe into a relationships model that Russia wants. Yes, there was a meeting of G20 leaders in Australia, where very few wanted to talk to Putin. But having come back home, he continued his rhetoric. And Russians are ready to vote for him. But is the West ready to stop Putin?
“The West turned out to be unprepared for this conflict, just as it was unprepared for the collapse of the USSR. The West does not have an integral policy. Putin decided that Europe does not have a strong leader, and the US president is interested in other issues. Putin will go as far as we let him,” Smeshko emphasized.
Recently, the first and third presidents of Ukraine Leonid Kravchuk and Viktor Yushchenko made a bold and true statement. In particular, they said: “International negotiations in various formats have not brought any real changes into the Kremlin’s plans to eliminate the independent state of Ukraine by methods of a hybrid war.” Little has changed in a week. The situation remains complicated. What is the problem, and how can it be solved? We talked about this with the first president of Ukraine Leonid KRAVCHUK:
“Neither Ukraine, nor the Western countries have a clear-cut position. But Russia has one, and makes use of our not quite accurate actions. It does so in various ways: by influencing the Western countries, or controlling militants and separatists of the so-called republics in eastern Ukraine. And why there are no precise and coordinated actions on the part of Ukraine? They are present formally, like Poroshenko’s Plan, which is followed neither by militants nor by Russia. There was an attempt to hold negotiations in the ‘Geneva mode,’ where positions of Western countries and Russia should have been determined. But for some reason, we abandoned this format quickly and shifted the focus to the ‘Minsk protocols’ which, as Lavrov has recently stated, Russia completely ignores since it did not sign them. But we all know about Russia’s statements that it does not carry any obligations before Ukraine in terms of the Budapest Memorandum as well, even though it signed the latter too.
“Many people cherished illusions that Putin represents a new Russia, that some democratic processes are bound to start. The Kremlin’s propaganda machine and some Western politicians bribed by Russia created this atmosphere. Now they are hesitating between Russia and Ukraine, emphasizing the urgency to avoid the World War III. We all do not want the World War III to happen. But I would like to remind everyone about history and the Hitler problem. He was coaxed and given territories too, but the war started nevertheless. That is why those who read Putin’s speech at the Valdai Club inattentively, should read it once again. Putin’s principle is not the rule of international law, but influence by means of force. Putin said that the world order was built not the way the Kremlin wants it, and therefore he wants to change it through a system of influences (force). Today it is not about Ukraine and Russia only, but about global security. Obama first spoke about it in Australia; he admitted that Russia presents a threat for Ukraine as well as for the rest of the world. That is, this topic gradually gains momentum.
“But why was focus shifted from Geneva to Minsk anyway? Because you could not invite militants from Donetsk and Luhansk to Geneva. The West believed Putin and the negotiations were transferred to Minsk. But this meeting virtually had no status. The signatories were not defined clearly, nor the authorities of the parties, with their legal powers. That is why Yushchenko and I offered a more realistic approach: let the countries gather and sign the Budapest Memorandum, which guarantees territorial integrity and sovereignty. And let them answer the question whether this document is being adhered to. If they think it is, then we will say that Ukraine is all alone, and nobody intends to help it. This is not a way to treat documents. The Minsk protocol is not a document which was signed by country leaders or someone on their behalf. It is a work protocol, and it is being treated correspondingly. The truce does not exist, not a single clause is being implemented. And now the so-called ‘DNR’ and ‘LNR’ have already declared they want to meet with Poroshenko. So, a question appears: what are we doing and what is the opposite party doing? Everything must be set in its place.”
Former president Kuchma did not co-author your and Yushchenko’s statement. Why didn’t he? Is it related to the fact that it was Kuchma who signed the Minsk protocols? Did you offer him to join you?
“I did not, that is for sure. Yushchenko talked to him. And from his words, Kuchma explained his refusal by the fact that he would probably have to participate in Minsk negotiations in the future, so his signature under our statement may create difficulties in the possible negotiations. Even though we clearly wrote in our statement that these negotiations do not have positive consequences and will not have them in the future. If there are no signatures of heads of states or foreign ministers on their behalf, they do not have any legal force at all. They are mere arrangements. I do not want to criticize, it is a question that the head of state should answer. But I know one thing. To settle any issues, a clear-cut standpoint of parties is necessary. Russia must act as a party in the conflict. It is the aggressor. But the Kremlin does not want to do it, and the others cannot find a way to force it so far.”
How can you comment on the statements of the author of the perestroika in the USSR Mikhail Gorbachev, saying that “the West has accepted the annexation of Crimea,” and his calls to Europeans to cancel sanctions against Russia?
“I do not really want to comment on this. Any statement by any Russian (be it a president, or an official) will be anti-Ukrainian. And Gorbachev is no exception. They all played at democracy. Boris Yeltsin used to run around the Freedom Monument and say that he was a democrat. Gorbachev tackled the task of overhauling the whole world: ‘new thinking for us and for the whole world,’ but still, these are people with the Russian imperial mindset. I cannot expect anything different from them. And from Gorbachev in particular. One thing is clear for me: Ukraine must know who it deals with and act correspondingly. The Western countries should know it too, even those that have doubts. And there should be no doubts. Putin and Russia have set different political and strategic tasks, which differ drastically from the civilized tasks of the Western world.”
COMMENTARY
“IF THE WEST SHOWS WEAKNESS IN UKRAINE’S INTEGRATION INTO NATO, RUSSIA WILL FURTHER DEMAND THAT UKRAINE DOES NOT INTEGRATE INTO THE EU”
Aliona HETMANCHUK, director, Institute of World Politics:
“Today we witness a large-scale war of nerves. Russia will win it, if it forces Ukraine to admit that what is going on in eastern Ukraine is its internal conflict (or as Russians say, a civil war), and forces Ukraine’s government to negotiate with ‘DNR’ and ‘LNR’ directly. Ukraine will win if it forces Russia acknowledge its involvement in the conflict and undertake corresponding obligations. Lavrov’s statement that Ukraine should negotiate with ‘DNR’ and ‘LNR’ directly is a perfect testimony that the Kremlin will do its best to force Kyiv recognize the war in Donbas as an internal conflict, so it could pose as a peacemaker. It is crucially important that the West will hold out here. For the West, Ukraine’s internal structure is not a major concern. What does matter is that Ukraine should become a functional and stable country. Likewise, the issue of Ukraine’s integration into NATO is not important for the West today. Some countries, Germany first of all, do not see Ukraine as a member of NATO, no matter whether Russia demands guarantees or not. We should openly admit today that despite the large support for NATO membership, the events of the past year have moved Ukraine farther from the membership instead of bringing it closer. If before the obstacles were put by both Ukraine and NATO, now they are on NATO’s side only. But the West should understand that the key question it must answer today is the question of who is to decide Ukraine’s future: Putin or the Ukrainian people. If it is the Ukrainian people, then there can be no guarantees for Russia a priori. Moreover, the West should understand: no guarantees of Ukraine’s staying away from NATO will ensure that Russia will stop destabilizing the situation in Ukraine. And if the West shows weakness and creates a precedent in the issue of Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic integration, Russia’s next step will be a demand to provide guarantees that Ukraine will not integrate into the European Union.”
