A “sarcophagus” for the Donbas...

Did Ukraine win or lose after the meeting in Paris? The debate is ongoing. Some see it as a victory, others as a betrayal. But above all, it showed a lack of necessary open communication between the Ukrainian government and its own society. Its omissions, and often lies, have seen its credibility melting away rapidly. Here is one example. Let us recall the fervor with which the representatives of the current government led by the president himself said that there was no “special status” in works and all believing there was were liars and traitors working for Putin. And now, following the Normandy Four’s summit, the French president speaks plainly of a special status for the Donbas.

“The elections must be held, and a special status will be used provisionally on the election day, and then permanently, after the election results are confirmed by international organizations. After that, we will go to the last stage, involving restoration of the territorial integrity of Ukraine, which means Ukraine getting back full control of its borders and the withdrawal of foreign military forces from its soil. Absolutely, it will take much longer than previously anticipated. We have basically agreed on everything and all provisions now have official definitions,” Francois Hollande said.

“We discussed some very complex issues today, including when the amnesty will come and when a law on the special status that should be mentioned in the Constitution of Ukraine will come into force, and we have agreed today on the implementation sequence for these steps,” German Chancellor Angela Merkel added.

So, when Petro Poroshenko states that the “withdrawal of foreign troops is to happen immediately, without any link to the elections,” it is hard to believe him. After all, Hollande said that “the restoration of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and withdrawal of foreign military forces is the last stage, to be held after the elections.” By the way, they will not be held on October 18 and November 1, but rather next year, but Ukraine still has to amend the relevant sections of Ukrainian legislation for it to happen. However, if the terrorists and bandits get amnestied, it will not matter that much what legislation they will be elected under. Their legalization could take place under the Ukrainian law then, and nobody will be able to find any fault.

Certainly, the ceasefire is a positive development in this whole tragedy, as people do not get killed now. However, how will the situation develop further? What does the recent agreement, reached by Poroshenko, Putin, Merkel, and Hollande in Paris, mean?

Edward LUCAS, senior vice president of the Center for European Policy Analysis, London:

“France and Germany should be ashamed of the pressure they are putting on Ukraine. Putin has lost the military initiative but has clearly seized the diplomatic initiative thanks to Western weakness and wishful thinking.”

Stefan MEISTER, head of Program on Eastern Europe, Russia, and Central Asia, Robert Bosch Center, German Council on Foreign Relations:

“The meeting has shown, that it is still far away from a solution in accordance with the Minsk agreement. It seems to be unrealistic at the moment to reach the removing of Russian troops and the return of Ukrainian control over its eastern border. Therefore the Normandy meeting focused on local elections which seem to be more realistic even if they did not reach an agreement for the time being. There is a growing interest to find a solution with Russia and the ‘Morel plan’ has to be analyzed in this context. To secure the Minsk process while at the same time focusing on what is possible. And we observe that Russia is not making any compromise except the ceasefire which is in action since September 1. So, from a Western perspective Ukraine has to move. All this is playing in Russia’s hands. Western politicians underestimate what these compromises mean for Poroshenko and how dangerous this can be in terms of domestic support for his policy.

“I don’t know what this is, for me it is more important in her speech, that she several times pointed out, that in every agreement we must wait for the reality on the ground and than we have the confirmation if the agreement is working or not. There is no trust with Russia and I don’t see any serious guarantees of the West for Ukraine. It is crisis management, muddling through and finding a deal with Russia.

“It is for both the only way, to step forward and to get this problem solved for the time being. They are interested in the conflict to get frozen, and in the direct contacts between the Ukrainian government and the separatists. But they will not accept elections under all conditions.

“Unfortunately Ukraine is the weakest point in the crisis and it is much easier to put Ukraine under pressure than Russia. In my opinion the sanctions and the oil price are working, Russia has an interest at the moment, to find a deal. That means we need more patience with the sanctions, which would improve our bargaining position. Russia will play that game as long as it is necessary. Only economic pressure might help in middle term to get a better deal for Ukraine. At the same time it needs more financial support for Ukraine to give the country a perspective.”

Keir GILES, director, Conflict Studies Research Centre; associate fellow, Chatham House, Royal Institute of International Affairs, the UK:

“The results of the meeting in Paris seemed to be another step in using the Minsk agreements as an excuse for not confronting Russia. The agreements that appear to have been reached are once again entirely one-sided, placing obligations on Ukraine, but none on Russia that are actually enforceable.

“There is no reason at all to imagine that free and fair elections could be held in the separatists-held territories, after the previous experience of the last elections and the Crimea referendum. Nevertheless, it is essential for Merkel and Hollande to pretend that this would be possible in order for them to save face and pretend that there is some kind of agreement or compromise or concession from the Russian side. Merkel has referred to Paris guarantees as well as Minsk guarantees, which sounds reassuring, but in fact it appears that these are not guarantees of anything which is meaningful for improving Ukraine’s security situation.

“Not only does this make it easier for Western nations in old NATO to consider lifting sanctions on Russia, because it creates the impression that Russia is behaving as a civilized state with regard to its neighbors, especially under circumstances where the West’s attention has been very successfully distracted by Russian operations in Syria. It also makes it next to impossible for Ukraine to reassert any kind of control over the territories held by the Russian-backed separatists without appearing to be the aggressor and the party carrying out unwarranted escalation.

“The Minsk agreements have always been a fig leaf for legitimizing the Russian occupation of part of Ukraine, in order that Europe can go back to business as usual with Moscow with the minimum possible delay. The latest round of talks appears merely to confirm this policy.”

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

“Mr. Putin continued his charm offensive in Paris. This offensive began with the sharp drop in firings across the ceasefire line three and a half weeks ago. It continued in Paris as Mr. Putin agreed to the withdrawal of Russian weapons, to the notion that the elections in the LNR and DNR should take place after Ukraine adopts the constitutional law on decentralization, and to OSCE monitor access to everywhere in the east. As a result, the French and German leaders said that talks were positive, although no issues have been resolved. Mr. Putin’s aim seems to be to persuade the Europeans that he is doing what is required under Minsk agreements in order to persuade them to lift, or ease sanctions in January.

“Still it is not clear that the Kremlin will meet its Minsk obligations. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that Putin will send an envoy to LNR and DNR leaders advising that they postpone the elections set for October 18 and November 1. Moscow is still maintaining the fiction that it does not have a decisive voice in the DNR and LNR. If the leaders reject this ‘advice,’ it will be clear that Moscow is not willing to do the necessary under Minsk agreements. Even President Hollande has said that if these elections proceed, it will be a major blow to Minsk. But if the elections are postponed, and if Moscow truly withdraws its military equipment and OSCE monitors have free run in Kremlin controlled territory – these would be significant steps good for Ukraine. Recognizing this, I do not think that the Paris talks were largely a matter of Merkel and Hollande pressing Poroshenko for concessions.

“It is true that they want Ukraine to pass the controversial constitutional law on decentralization; but the law in its first reading, which was acceptable in Berlin and Paris, was criticized by Moscow because it only gave the LNR and DNR (and other localities) control over local matters; it did not give them undue influence in national matters such as national security. It is also true that Mr. Hollande talks as if Minsk agreements will not be implemented by the end of the year. I can understand Ukraine’s frustration with this; after all, it has been Moscow’s refusal to ensure implementation of the agreement that explains this.

“Still, the German position remains that if Moscow does not fulfill all of its Minsk commitments, sanctions remain in place. That means the pressure will remain on the Kremlin.

“One last point. It is true that this whole diplomatic process would be more effective if the US was participating. The Normandy format is not ideal. It would also be better if Washington was exerting more overall leadership in countering Kremlin revisionism in Ukraine and elsewhere. But Washington has taken a strong position on sanctions and is even starting to increase its aid to Ukraine’s military. Last week’s decision to send counter battery radar for missiles was an important milestone in Washington’s growing involvement in this contest.”

Oleksandr CHERNENKO, MP, Petro Poroshenko Bloc:

“It is too early to draw any precise conclusions from the statements made in Paris. These statements were very short on specifics. We can say that they met the conditions of the Minsk process. It is too early to say at the moment that we will enact an election law for the occupied territories tomorrow. Therefore, the understandings reached in Paris need a more specific and detailed interpretation, to be done by bodies including the trilateral working group. Much will depend on the separatists canceling their fake ‘elections.’ If they do it, then we will be able to start a discussion about an election law for these territories and the vote’s timing. It is the Minsk agreements that provide for the complete withdrawal of Russian troops from the occupied territory. All these issues should be resolved by the end of 2015, otherwise the peace negotiations will be deadlocked. This is a key point that follows from the logic of the Minsk agreements. As to whether the elections might be held there until the end of the year or later, no one can say for sure now. There are doubts that these elections can be held before December. As to Russia refusing to admit its troops’ presence in the Donbas, the OSCE mission records such presence.”

 Serhii VYSOTSKY, MP, People’s Front:

“One’s perception of the Paris meeting as a ‘betrayal’ or a ‘victory’ depends on the initial position. If one’s frame of reference is reintegration of the Donbas in Ukraine being held not under the control of Russia, the meeting was successful. Great many Ukrainians believe that this is our territory, and we need to get it back, rebuild it, and fight for the minds of the locals. Other participants have pointed out to Vladimir Putin that no election in the Donbas will be held on his terms. We did the same during the first Minsk talks. We then declared an amnesty, but as the militants did not lay down their arms, it was immediately canceled. Ukraine determines the rules of the game in the process. The so-called ‘Morel plan’ is nonsense, and the president is absolutely right in this regard. The plan called for the joint holding of the elections by our side and the militants. None of this will happen, so from the perspective of promoting the peace plan, the meeting in Paris was a victory. The debate has flared up because so many people, in turn, criticize the meetings, including ones in Minsk, because they do not want the return of the Donbas in the condition in which it is now. From the perspective of someone who does not want such a return, the meeting in Paris was a loss. In my opinion, nothing terrible objectively happened in Paris. I see more positives in it, if we reason in the framework of the Minsk agreements.

“As for the immediate return of the Donbas to Ukraine, it should be understood that even with us unwilling to do it, the international community will impose it on us. Petro Poroshenko’s program calls for a peaceful reintegration of the region. This is no betrayal. Personally, I have not yet fully made up my mind on it. After all, those opposing such a reintegration have some strong arguments too. That is, if the Donbas’s rebuilding is again going to be entrusted to Rinat Akhmetov, who will promote his pro-separatist interests there, it will definitely be a negative prospect.

“Any talk about ‘Motorola’ or ‘Givi’ entering the Ukrainian parliament or participating in the local elections is nonsense. Instead, we may well get people such as, for example, Enrique Menendez representing the region, having been elected under the slogans about the ‘new sprouts’ or ‘listening to the Donbas.’ This unhealthy trend may result in us discussing the destructive moments instead of building up our country. On the other hand, past experience shows that the whole process could be derailed at any moment because the militants can break the ceasefire and go on the attack.”