On the West’s trump and the language of weapons

The so-called Minsk protocol on the settling in Donbas stirred a large wave of criticism in the expert community. At first it was announced the document consisted of 14 clauses, but then, at the summit in Wales on September 5, Ukraine’s President Petro Poroshenko said there were 12 of them. It is interesting that the Ukrainian president emphasized the protocol signed in Minsk was based on his peaceful plan. And the parliamentary newspaper Holos Ukrainy says that the protocol was signed “according to the results of the trilateral contact group, created to determine joint steps aimed at the implementation of the peaceful plan by the President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko and initiatives of the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin.”

It is clear that the absence of a clause on withdrawal of Russian troops and military equipment from Ukraine’s territory ignited the most indignation. Indeed, the last week the whole world kept receiving evidence of the presence of two hundred tanks and over four thousand Russian soldiers in Ukraine. And now, pay attention to clause No. 10: “To withdraw illegal armed groups, military equipment, as well as militants and mercenaries from the territory of Ukraine.” Also, the clause on granting a special status to separate areas of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts aroused many questions.

An almost sensational statement by Germany’s foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier appeared, in which he said Russia undertook to withdraw all its forces and equipment from the territory of Ukraine. “There is an agreement between Ukraine and Russia that all Russian soldiers and weapons that are still on the territory of Ukraine, must be withdrawn. The international community will be watching closely over this,” said the chief of German diplomacy as cited by Radio Liberty.

A question suggests itself: why do we learn this from a German minister, but not from our own diplomats? Why this secrecy and closeness from the public, from the government and the president, even though the latter promised [in his election campaign – Ed.] a new way of living? Can Putin be trusted to execute this agreement? By the way, after the Ukrainian president’s statement about ceasefire, he did not answer journalists who were shouting: “Mr. Poroshenko, do you believe Putin?” And now we have questions to our president as well, whether it is true that 70 percent of Russian forces have been moved across the border back to Russia and this is one more hope that “peaceful initiatives have good prospects,” as it was stated by the Ukrainian leader at the expanded government meeting.

COMMENTARY

“THE SITUATION WHEN RUSSIAN MILITARY EQUIPMENT STAYS IN UKRAINE DURING THE CEASEFIRE CAN LAST ENDLESSLY LONG UNLESS EUROPE INTERFERES”

Roman DOBROKHOTOV, leader of the Russian Youth Democratic Movement “We,” Moscow:

“First of all, it must be understood that Russia can never publicly declare that there is an agreement of such kind. If Steinmeier did say this, Russia will refute it, of course, because it officially stated that there were no Russian troops in Ukraine. Therefore, Russia cannot admit it will withdraw them. In reality, I suspect nobody spoke about such agreements before, because it would put Russia in a situation when it is forced to refute this agreement, and it is not entirely clear how it would be executed. It is simpler to just keep quiet about such a clause, which might have been happening.

“Secondly, what point would it be for Ukraine to simply talk about stopping the anti-terrorist operation if Russia did not withdraw troops. It would practically mean Ukraine’s defeat and that separatists could start organizing their own statehood. So, it was obvious from the start that such condition was implied.

“And we can also understand this from the fact that the European Union did state it would implement another round of sanctions. Even though the EU did not speak it out loud, it was implied they do not see any measures taken by Russia towards settling the conflict, and withdrawing troops in particular. This parameter is crucial in the agreements. And since Russian troops are not withdrawn, on the contrary, their numbers only increase (a lot of witnesses report that Russian soldiers only strengthen their positions there), Europe reacts correspondingly.”

And now the EU, represented by the foreign minister of its leading country, says that “Russia must play its role in the implementation of Minsk agreements on ceasefire.” After the truce was announced, Poroshenko said at the NATO Summit in Wales that responsibility lies with both Russia and Ukraine. A question appears: can Putin be trusted?

“In reality, the question is not whether shots are fired from either side since, as we see on examples of Israel, Nagorno-Karabakh, and other places, it is not always possible to achieve total ceasefire, because incidents always take place anyway. That is why the main issue now is the one we are discussing, that Russian active forces and military equipment must be withdrawn. Otherwise, while they stay there, there is no point in talking about settling the conflict, since it will not satisfy Ukraine in any case. Ukraine will be forced to resume the anti-terrorist operation because a part of its territory is occupied. And it is quite possible that Putin is the most satisfied with such status. If Russia annexed these territories like Crimea, it would mean Russia would have to pay pensions and take over general financial support of these territories. But Russia is in a very complicated economic situation today, ruble and oil price are falling, perhaps, there will be a serious budget deficit, recession is very likely to follow. And of course, Russia cannot take multibillion obligations on restoring the east of Ukraine right now. That is why the current situation is favorable for Putin, with Ukraine seeming to be in trouble, which makes it possible to brainwash the Russian TV audience about the implications of revolution, junta, and civil war in Ukraine, airing all this continuously on the news, intimidating Russian audience, and bolstering Putin’s approval rating.

“And of course, Putin is satisfied with this, so why would he change anything now? Such situation, when Russian military equipment stays in Ukraine during the ceasefire, can last endlessly long, unless Europe interferes now. That is why I suspect that the German diplomat’s statement was not an accidental leak. This part of agreement supposedly was not to be announced. But he voiced it, allegedly arbitrarily, simply because it is not executed, in order to let everyone understand there was an agreement of such sort.”

“THE MAIN TRUMP OF THE WEST IS THAT THEY CAN REALLY START SUPPLYING UKRAINE WITH HEAVY MACHINERY, AIRCRAFT, AND OTHER LETHAL ARMAMENTS”

Is the Russian president’s position influenced by the fact of holding hours-long negotiations with the Ukrainian president, and also by statements made by many American senators and congressmen from both parties, including Obama’s advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, on the necessity of supplying Ukraine with defense armament?

“I think the West’s main trump is that they can indeed start supplying Ukraine with heavy machinery, aircraft, and other lethal armaments. If this happens, of course, the situation will change in Ukraine’s favor. It is clear this increases risks for both sides and can lead to a full-scale conflict. And the West and Ukraine do not want this in the first place. It seems that Putin does not care. Civilian casualties worry him but very little, judging by the recent events, while democracies are used to valuing human lives. So, on the one hand, they want to intimidate Putin with this, but on the other, they do not want to escalate the conflict. I think this is the reason Ukraine still does not have the West’s armaments. However, military exercises which will take place in Ukraine are quite telling. It will be the most convenient moment to agree on supplying armaments to Ukraine. If Russia does not withdraw its troops within the week before the start of the exercise, it will end with a part of NATO’s equipment not leaving the territory of Ukraine, since it either will be leased or bought on credit. The formalities can be easily settled. The main point is that the most up-to-date NATO’s equipment will physically be present there. Of course, Putin understands it. The only language he understands is the language of Realpolitik, the language of weapons. So, the way I understand it, the West counts on simultaneous provision of armaments and toughening of economic sanctions. It must be understood Putin ended up in a rather complicated situation, because if he does withdraw troops, he will certainly never admit they were withdrawn, but will say they were never there. He understands that during two weeks Ukraine will regain control over its whole territory and no prospects will be left for Russian flag-wavers. I can hardly imagine how he could come up with a way out that would satisfy him. Perhaps, in this situation Putin might count on arranging some reasonable sort of autonomy for these regions in return for the withdrawal of troops, with Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts having additional rights, and Ukraine unable to join NATO without their consent.”