The Ukrainian oligarch Viktor Pinchuk’s contribution in The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) (US), which advocates so-called “painful compromises,” has had a major public impact. Two weeks later, it still is hotly debated. Proposals put forward by that individual, signing as “a businessman and philanthropist,” prompted criticism from prominent politicians, public figures, and journalists. It happened because the oligarch’s text features a formula of compromise for the sake of “peace” in Ukraine. That is, while nominally recognizing Ukraine’s sovereignty over the occupied territories, he de facto proposes to let the occupier have them until better times.
“...While we maintain our position that Crimea is part of Ukraine and must be returned, Crimea must not get in the way of a deal that ends the war in the east on an equitable basis. It will take Ukraine 15 to 20 years to generate enough economic growth and stabilize our infrastructure, social safety net, and financial system. Everyone from Crimea will then want to live in this future Ukraine – just as East Germans wanted to become part of West Germany... Conflict in the east was initiated from abroad and is not a genuine autonomy movement or civil war. There will not be conditions for fair elections until Ukraine has full control over its territory. But we may have to overlook this truth and accept local elections... Finally, let us accept that Ukraine will not join NATO in the near- or midterm,” Pinchuk wrote.
Deputy Head of the Presidential Administration of Ukraine Kostiantyn Yelisieiev responded to Pinchuk in the same publication, explaining that the Ukrainian government’s position is diametrically opposite to that taken by Pinchuk. “I cannot agree with his [Pinchuk’s. – Ed.] appeal for compromises based on worries. Fear and weakness are bad advisers. They just play into Russia’s appetites
No reversal in European and Euro-Atlantic integration of Ukraine. This would be a surrender of independence, sovereignty, and the territorial integrity of Ukraine. No trade in the territory of Ukraine, be it Donbas or Crimea. These territories cannot be part of a trade-off for peace,” Yelisieiev declared.
There is every reason to believe (given the recent statements of some experts in Russia on the need to bomb the Ukrainian military, or the examples of Abkhazia and South Ossetia) that Russia will not leave the occupied territories of its own free will. And it applies not only to Crimea, but to the Donbas as well, where a powerful military enclave was created long ago. It is hard to imagine that the Kremlin will withdraw or leave behind a lot of equipment and militants of its own free will. Therefore, Vladimir Putin’s chief objective is destruction of the very statehood of Ukraine. What “compromises” are possible, then? Obviously, it is not about compromises, but rather about unilateral concessions. And those whispering all sorts of reconciliatory suggestions stand not for peace but for a rotten deal. Pinchuk’s personality is quite revealing in this respect. He is not just one of the most prominent representatives of Ukraine’s oligarchic system, but former president Leonid Kuchma’s son-in-law as well. The latter, incidentally, responded to the Kremlin’s occupation of the Crimean peninsula almost at once, in May 2014, by saying: “We have already lost Crimea, and I believe there is no realistic prospect of its returning, since Russia has gone for broke.”
Pinchuk effectively represents a family which, beyond creating principal issues plaguing the Ukrainian state back in its time in power (Kuchma was the longest-serving top official, having served a year as prime minister, and a decade as president), still influences the Ukrainian politics. Few remember now that the first Maidan protest was launched against Kuchma, who initially wanted to stay for a third term and then changed his mind to make Viktor Yanukovych his successor. Meanwhile, the second Maidan protest, which turned deadly, opposed actions of Kuchma’s “student” Yanukovych, who did come to power in the meantime. Kuchma has represented Ukraine at the Minsk talks for the third year running, which platform is a losing one for Ukraine and essentially implementing the Kremlin’s position, granting it effective control of the occupied territories in Crimea and parts of the Donbas. This brings to mind the fact that it was Kuchma who signed the Minsk Agreements. Accordingly, Pinchuk’s proposals are essentially a logical step, fully in line with the past performance of that family.
“This article is not accidental,” the BlackSeaNews project’s Crimea-born editor-in-chief Andrii Klymenko commented for The Day. “There are two components of the reasons for its appearance. Firstly, the exit from a conversation is more important than its start. In that way, Pinchuk effectively reminds Donald Trump that they know each other. He tells the whole world that he is Trump’s acquaintance and even got him speaking via Skype at one of his Yalta European Strategy (YES) forums. Secondly, this kind of thing is clearly somewhat of a sounding, looking for official opinions and public response. I cannot help but take interest in it given that this is the second major sounding on the issue. The first attempt at response monitoring happened with Henry Kissinger’s statements. His words were almost identical to those written by Pinchuk. One can assume that big business people are tired of war and sanctions. These people are active in Russia and beyond. They are trying to get started on lifting the sanctions, but it can be done only under the conditions described by Pinchuk. Frankly, I think that what is being prepared is not Minsk-3, but rather Munich-2017.”
“Pinchuk was trying to simulate a certain reality. We must understand that Pinchuk has long tried to enter high politics,” Luhansk-born blogger and TV host Serhii Ivanov commented for The Day. “However, his model and forecasts have turned out to be incorrect. The US elections have ended, and the results are not those he expected and in which he invested. Now he, like any opportunist, is trying to reformat his agenda in a hurry. At the same time, he is not interested in the nation’s wellbeing and the fact that the Ukrainians are at war. What right he has to give us advice? The article says that he is a businessman and philanthropist, but it should have clearly indicated that he is an oligarch and the son-in-law of a man who is suspected of assassinating a journalist. Moreover, his father-in-law grew rich solely because of corruption. It is not clear why Pinchuk takes it upon himself to define foreign policy directions for the nation.”
Pinchuk was not alone with his proposals. Diplomat and chairman of the International Center for Policy Studies Vasyl Filipchuk presented his vision of the problem in the online publication Apostrof. In it, he describes step-by-step another “compromise” scenario, which he labels as the most constructive one. The article is entitled “Bargaining Chip or Battlefield: What Will Happen to Ukraine in 2017, or Nine Steps To Resolve the Conflict with Russia.”
Regarding Sevastopol, Filipchuk’s proposal is as follows: “Ukraine agrees to lease the city to Russia for 99 years on the model of the British lease of Chinese Hong Kong.” Next: “Sevastopol is to be recognized as a city under nominal Ukrainian sovereignty, but to be separated by an administrative boundary from Crimea, led by Russia-appointed governor [!!! – Ed.], and used as a Russian military base.” That is, Ukraine should effectively relinquish part of its own territory and fail to recognize it as occupied. The last point is extremely important, because it is recognition of the occupation that imposes relevant obligations on the aggressor. With that happening, the issue of sanctions against Russia will of course go away.
Next, and equally naive, point deals with the entire Crimean peninsula. “The parties shall use the Northern Irish peace settlement (the Good Friday Agreement of 1998) as a model in their effort to determine the status of the Crimean peninsula,” the said article notes. “A 20-year moratorium on the status of Crimea is to be announced. The peninsula shall remain under Ukrainian sovereignty, but all state powers and functions except foreign, security, and monetary policies shall be transferred to local authorities.” This comes after Putin’s statements that he sees the issue of Crimea as closed for good. So, what is all this talk of sovereignty about? Remarkably, the author mentions not only sovereignty, but also national security. Namely, “Ukraine shall be responsible for the national security, foreign relations, and monetary matters in Crimea.” Will it be the Crimean strongman Serhii Aksionov, perchance, who will be entrusted with implementing this clause?
The diplomat did not fail to mention the gas industry, it being the eternal cash cow for Ukrainian oligarchs. Filipchuk proposes to implement the EU’s Third Energy Package and let “all firms which qualify as operators under the EU rules to sell gas to final consumers.” Ukraine shall agree to sell the shares of Ukrtranshaz provided all parties get equal access to the gas transportation system. According to Filipchuk, all these measures will eliminate energy-related irritants in bilateral relations with Russia.
Filipchuk wrote that “Ukraine and Russia shall agree to return to the existing bilateral legal framework, including the so-called Great Treaty, which needs to be prolonged.” According to Filipchuk, Ukraine shall agree to “sell or grant concessions for those military industry companies that operate only on the Russian market, and turn other such enterprises into JSCs, enabling Russia to buy their shares.” Russia, in its turn, will guarantee Ukraine’s control over the use of military goods to be produced on our soil. It looks like the Russian guarantees will come in the shape of Grad launchers and tanks which it has sent to the Donbas.
Equally surprising in this regard is Filipchuk’s proposal for Russia “to withdraw all its agents of influence from the Donbas.” These armed to the teeth likes of Motorola [Arsen Pavlov’s nickname. – Ed.] will apparently have to voluntarily repent and run away. Filipchuk concluded by calling for “normalization of Ukrainian-Russian relations.” Terrorists who will not leave Ukrainian territory by day “D” are to be destroyed without negotiations. Interestingly, what prevents us from doing so now? The diplomat did insert the term “the reintegration strategy for some districts of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions,” while failing to even mention de-occupation.
“From a national interest perspective, the compromises offered in the abovementioned articles are unacceptable,” former foreign minister of Ukraine Volodymyr Ohryzko commented for The Day. “And it is not just about one article by Pinchuk, as we have a whole bunch of such contributions already. From a perspective of the interests of a particular business or a particular dependent group, patriotic interests are just not there. Ultimately, people must distinguish between business and national interests. If business owners believe they are better off collaborating with the enemy, they should just move to Russia and work there. I am now waiting for the Davos summit to start, and it will be interesting to see who will meet with Pinchuk after his article in WSJ. This will be a test for our political class. It is very sad that a prominent foundation [the International Renaissance Foundation. – Ed.], despite saying that it did not agree with Pinchuk’s stance, stated it will continue to work on joint projects with him.”
Kissinger’s statements, Pinchuk’s article, Filipchuk’s proposals... it all looks like a multi-level sounding of the Ukrainian society and the international community. In that way, they try to prepare us for a “soft” surrender, when the attacked party pretends that nothing has happened instead of calling a spade a spade. And this is a blow to a basic institution of statehood, that is, sovereignty. Thus, the interests of individuals are actually substituted for the national interests of Ukraine, which is a direct blow against national security. The question arises, why do some oligarchs dare to speak on behalf of Ukraine, thereby taking upon themselves settlement of foreign policy issues?
What could serve as an alternative then, what strategy is to be used? “We must call a spade a spade,” Ohryzko stressed. “Terminological uncertainty encourages speculations. It is a semi-war, a semi-anti-terrorist operation, a semi-negotiation, a semi-consultation. Eventually, this leads to retreats and defeats and encourages the enemy to attack. Such hybrid nature of the events harms Ukraine. Nothing stops the government from going beyond formal statements to dot the i’s and cross the t’s of the international law. It is never too late to correct one’s mistakes, and equally never too late to break diplomatic relations with the aggressor. We will be able to liberate Crimea and the occupied territories of the Donbas if we make clear to our Western partners a very simple truth: Russia is a threat not only for Ukraine, but also for the West. If we do not unite against this threat, it will harm the interests of the civilized world. If we want to act rather than just make statements, we have to think not about formats, but rather about uniting to deter Russia. Meanwhile, if we just make statements and express concern, the situation will develop in favor of the aggressor.”
