US outside “Normandy format”

It looks like settling the Donbas conflict, i.e., in fact the Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine, may receive a new impetus. At least this impression is created by the latest foreign political activity of such heavyweights as Germany and the US. Also the other day, the president and prime minister of Ukraine visited Germany and France, respectively.

The results of German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s two visits to Moscow and one of US Secretary of State John Kerry to Sochi are common knowledge. Den has already written that the two sides still stick to their guns. The only result is that Merkel spoke about the criminal annexation of Crimea at a press conference in the presence of Putin.

Many hopes about resolving the conflict were pinned on the visit of Secretary of State John Kerry, one of the US topmost officials, to Russia – the first in the past two years. For almost all experts were unanimous that the inclusion of the US into the Normandy format, which embraces Ukraine, Germany, France, and Russia, would promote a speedy settlement of the Donbas conflict.

But this did not occur, at least judging by the press conference of the Russian foreign minister and his US counterpart and media publications. For this reason, the abovementioned visits of Merkel and Kerry to Russia, where they discussed Ukrainian problems without Ukraine, are causing concern. But no one knows what agreements these leaders reached with the Kremlin leadership and what price Ukraine will have to pay for resolving a Russia-initiated conflict.

It only remains to hope that, in the course of their visits to Germany and France, respectively, the president and the premier will make things clear and receive assurances that Berlin and Paris will do their best to make Russia observe the Minsk agreements. But even now one can call into question the effectiveness and consistency of the president’s foreign policy, for, under the Constitution, no other than he is responsible for Ukraine’s foreign policy. It is Poroshenko who signed the Minsk agreements, and now, on the eve of flying to Berlin, he emphasized that, in the course of negotiations with the German chancellor, he was going to request European leaders to support the dispatch of peacekeepers to the Donbas under the EU or UN aegis. But the EU does not support this idea, especially taking into account that Poroshenko himself says there is no alternative to the Minsk agreements and, besides, promised to abide by them.

It is good that, simultaneously with the president’s journey, Ukraine’s prime minister is visiting France, a party to the “Normandy format.” Arsenii Yatseniuk should also persuade French President Francois Hollande to believe that our country is observing the Minsk agreements and, accordingly, receive assurances that Paris will pressure Moscow into doing the same.

John HERBST, former US Ambassador to Ukraine, member of the Atlantic Council, Washington:

“The sad thing, though, is the Administration does not understand that the revisionist policies of the Kremlin in Ukraine, Europe, and Eurasia are a much greater strategic challenge than Iran. And that challenge demands a more energetic and firmer American and Western response. Mr. Kerry’s visit and his focus on how the US-Russian relationship might improve is the wrong message for stopping Moscow’s aggressive designs for its neighborhood.

“The Administration’s policies do not reflect the gravity of a Kremlin on the march. If weak American policies permit Russian success in Ukraine and aggression elsewhere, the foreign policy record of the Obama Administration will be seen as one of weakness and failure.

“Dangerously underestimating the danger of Putin’s revisionism, the Administration is content letting the Europeans take the lead in this crisis. The Administration is likely to continue its solid policy regarding sanctions on Russia. The Administration cannot ignore Moscow’ ongoing violations of the ceasefire: the delivery of more heavy weapons, the presence of Russian troops, the near daily casualties caused by fire from Kremlin-controlled areas of eastern Ukraine. In addition, many senior officials in the Administration and much of Congress have a much more realistic appreciation of the Kremlin threat. All of these factors make it unlikely that the Administration would propose, or go along with, an easing of sanctions.”

Steven PIFER, former US Ambassador to Ukraine, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Center on the United States and Europe:

“My sense was that the primary goal was to keep a communications channel open to Putin. That will be valuable if/when the Kremlin changes its policy toward Ukraine in a way that signals it wishes to find a genuine settlement and end its isolation from the West – in the same way that it is useful for German Chancellor Merkel to keep a line open to Putin. At the end of the day, Ukraine cannot return to normalcy if the Russians do not agree; they have too many levers – military, energy, economic – that they can use to pressure Kyiv. The problem is that the Kremlin has not yet been ready to work for such a settlement.

“As for specific negotiations, Washington supports the Minsk process and the Minsk 2 agreement, but it has not sought to be included in the Normandy format. It is not clear that Washington’s inclusion in the negotiations could help. It might even introduce an unhelpful dynamic, given broader tensions between Washington and Moscow. If there was a persuasive argument that American participation would have a significant and positive impact on the negotiations, I expect that Washington would be prepared to reconsider its position.

“As for the United States giving up Ukraine in exchange for Russian help on Syria or Iran, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that.”