“The state does not have a conflict resolving strategy”

As expected, the meeting of the Normandy quartet of foreign ministers in Berlin, aimed at resolving the situation in Donbas, turned out fruitless. Its participants confirmed in their statement that the Minsk agreements underlie resolving the conflict, and they must be implemented by all parties in full extent. The diplomats also confirmed the necessity of the absolute adherence to the “silence mode.”

As Ihor Kharchenko stated in his tweet, “Astana in the Normandy format ‘has been postponed for a few weeks’; the idea of changing the place and negotiators expectedly flopped (the ‘odd participant’ factor). Diplomatic language, and just any other human language, perhaps except for a very peculiar, special language, is obviously no longer an efficient means of influencing the Kremlin’s standpoint. The means and formats of influence must be different, not diplomatic ones.”

Let us remind that experts have been criticizing the Ukrainian government for deviating from the Geneva format of negotiations with Russia, in which heads of diplomatic agencies of Ukraine, Russia, the United States, and the EU participated. The Minsk format has virtually brought leaders of the so-called DNR and LNR to the negotiations table, at which Ukraine was represented by the author of the existing clan oligarchic system Leonid Kuchma. The Minsk agreements were signed on September 5, and they still are not implemented and will hardly be implemented in the future.

What can Ukraine do in this situation, and should we rely on another meeting to regulate the situation in Donbas, or should the strategy be changed?

“PRESSURE MUST BE PUT ON THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION UNTIL IT TAKES RESPONSIBILITY FOR RESOLVING THE ISSUE”

Jon Elvedal FREDRIKSEN, Ambassador of Norway to Ukraine:

“As regards the EU partners, we have to use every opportunity to reiterate that Russia must implement the Minsk agreements. President Poroshenko emphasized multiple times that the Minsk agreements underlie resolving the conflict in Donbas. And we support the position of Ukrainian government in this matter.

“If we see some specific steps on implementing the Minsk agreements taken by Russia, this will become an absolutely different basis for the discussion and resolving the issue with the Russian Federation’s participation. But Russia must withdraw its troops from Ukraine and extensively use its clout on the gangs that control the situation in Donbas.”

Do we need new sanctions to force Russia to implement the agreements that were signed by the Russian ambassador?

“I cannot talk about new sanctions. Now this issue is to be discussed on the political level in the EU. But I see no grounds to lift the sanctions until the situation in Crimea and Donbas changes. I do not see any steps made by the Russian Federation in relation to Crimea. On the contrary, the human rights situation in Crimea is deteriorating, especially when it comes to Crimean Tatars.

“Perhaps, some initiatives, specific proposals and steps are necessary, but I do not see any solutions except diplomatic ones. The military solution is impossible, at least from our point of view. Of course, pressure must be put on the Russian Federation until it takes responsibility for resolving of the issue. But settling this matter without Ukraine, or in other words, over its head, is impossible.”

“THE MINSK AGREEMENTS ARE AN EXAMPLE OF AN UNFINISHED ALGORITHM OF RESOLVING A CONFLICT”

Mykola KAPITONENKO, executive director, Center for International Studies, Kyiv:

“It is not about formats, but about a meaningful solution, which has not been found yet. That is why, no matter how long and where leaders and officials of various levels assemble, it is impossible to see the real formula of the conflict solution yet. Russia cannot make concessions, and neither can we, because it is a matter of principle for us, just like for Europeans and Americans. That is why unless a compromise is reached, even if a meeting in Astana did take place, it could help solve only some technical issues like the exchange of prisoners or technical parameters of the truce.”

But the Minsk protocol states what should be done for the conflict to be resolved.

“It is true. But firstly, it is mostly about technical parameters, and secondly, it is unclear what is hidden behind the parties’ negotiatory positions. It is like the theory of negotiations, you must proceed not from the parties’ direct statements, but from their motives.

“A truce means something specific for each party. It is either procrastination, or an opportunity to regroup, receive reinforcements, or an attempt to de-escalate and settle the conflict. So, there are various motives. Even if there is a common agreement on paper, it might not be implemented exactly like someone sees it. Each party will have their own understanding of what is written on paper. The Minsk agreements are an example of an unfinished algorithm of resolving the conflict, when the presence of negotiations is more important for the parties than the achievement of some specific result.”

Experts criticized Ukrainian diplomacy for abandoning Geneva format and agreeing to Minsk format, and moreover, portraying it as a victory, because specific agreements were registered there by the Russian representative, while Russia never implemented them. How can you comment on this?

“Ukrainian diplomacy acts within its operative abilities. But the existing boundaries are too narrow now. They have to be based on internal consolidated decisions, strategy, or a clear-cut plan of achieving of a goal. However, as far as I understand, the state does not have a strategy of solving the conflict in eastern Ukraine. And diplomacy is one of the tools of achieving a goal of that kind. If there is no specific goal or plan, diplomacy as a tool cannot be effective. It can be effective for organization of some negotiations platform or holding technical negotiations, but it cannot solve a conflict of this kind all by itself. If a task is set before the diplomats that this is what we want to achieve in the east, and if this decision is achieved on the political level, then undoubtedly it will be impossible to achieve anything without the change in Moscow’s standpoint. Then diplomacy will help implement this decision. Yet if there is no strategy, diplomacy cannot be effective.”

And who should develop this strategy: the president, the prime minister, or the Verkhovna Rada?

“The current conflict is a large-scale social phenomenon. That is why the strategy cannot be limited to a single political body. It must be a very complex consolidated entity, or an action plan. Of course, considerable resources are required to develop such an action plan. Ukraine lacks clear vision of the origins of this conflict, what we want to achieve, which state is acceptable for us, which is not, and it lacks resources. At the moment, I do not see a single completed strategy on the conflict in the east in either of the institutions mentioned above.”

The president stated that Kyiv is ready to offer Donbas a special status of a free economic zone with a special regime (of relations) with the European Union and Russia. In particular, he talked about the economic autonomy of this region. What can you say about that?

“If it were a classic ethnic conflict, which happen every once in various countries, including those in Western Europe, the path to resolving this conflict would lie through autonomy, when a specific ethnic, cultural, or religious group desires greater independence in some particular areas. But there is no such conflict within our country. This conflict has been artificially created and maintained. A third country creates a quasi-state with puppet quasi-governments on our territory, and also an illusion that a social conflict exists in Ukraine. It is not quite clear why a reaction to this should include autonomization, because we are not dealing with a classic ethnic or any other internal conflict. It was created artificially.

“All this reminds the World War II period, when the countries conquered by Germany split and independent states with their own governments were proclaimed. It is just a kind of a technology. Autonomy or autonomization is a way to unleash a real internal conflict, which does not exist in Ukraine. Here lies the complexity of the situation and development of the strategy in relation to what is going on in the east. This problem cannot be solved with autonomization.”