Chief press officer of the Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF)’s General Staff Vladyslav Selezniov said that the issue of demilitarization of Shyrokyne should be resolved by August 3.
The Tripartite Contact Group was to present the plan to demilitarize Shyrokyne in Minsk on August 3. There was no information about the group’s meeting when this issue went to the press. Let us note that Shyrokyne itself is a settlement of no strategic interest. President Petro Poroshenko said recently that the Ukrainian military would not leave the commanding heights, the occupation of which could allow the militants to pose a threat to our positions and Mariupol. Let us recall that the Ukrainian negotiators, led by ex-president Leonid Kuchma, offered the representatives of illegal armed groups to demilitarize the village back in April.
MP Dmytro Tymchuk posted a statement on Facebook, expressing his bewilderment regarding the demilitarization of Shyrokyne and calling the idea “a sham affair.” In particular, he said: “Our senior military and political leadership states that no one will surrender the heights, and they will remain under the control of the UAF. It is wonderful. However, to avoid unnecessary uproar, our leaders would do well to present the ‘Shyrokyne demilitarization plan’ they have outlined to the Ukrainian public. At least, they should present that part that will reassure people that we will not surrender Mariupol. In this context, we should recognize that talk of the ‘UAF being able to return to their former positions in 15 minutes’ may be only seen as a stupid joke, calculated on the credulous. If the terrorists place artillery (of course, with the support of infantry units) in locations left by our soldiers, there will be no way for our troops to return to their current positions.”
Deputy commander of the anti-terrorist operation (ATO) Kostiantyn Sokolov commented on the situation for The Day: “We at the headquarters of the ATO have no information on the withdrawal of troops at the moment. The Joint Center for Coordination and Control over Armaments Withdrawal is dealing with it. No withdrawal will happen without an order, and no such order has been received. The sides are still reconciling their stances. The Marines have relieved the Azov regiment in Shyrokyne, while units of mechanized infantry brigades have replaced the Aidar battalion in Shchastia. No troop withdrawal has been held. It was a scheduled rotation, for Aidar and Azov soldiers, for instance, had been on the frontlines for over a year. They need to rest and get reinforced. At the front, they have been replaced by regular UAF units. We will consider troop withdrawals only after all issues will be resolved by the contact groups. It should be understood that if the situation threatens the security of our forces, our citizens and our territory, no withdrawal will come to pass. Everything will be done to ensure maximum compliance with the Minsk Accords as well as the safety of residents, in particular in Mariupol. There is no point in panicking.”
At present, we do not understand fully what dangers are likely to result from the demilitarization of Shyrokyne in particular and the withdrawal of armaments from the 30-kilometer zone in general. It is obvious that the “Minsk format,” being derived from the Normandy format which excluded the US from negotiations, put the Ukrainian side into an impasse from the outset. Every decision, every point of the agreements provided for at best freezing the conflict. In fact, we have seen recurrent outbreaks of heavy fighting along the frontline, total and cynical violations of the agreements. The Kremlin has used the conflict in which it has formally admitted no part to put pressure on Ukraine by its military might as well as political blackmail.
The one-year experience of negotiating with the militants and Vladimir Putin shows that the rules established by the Kremlin favor one side, while August 2014 statements to the effect that Putin should be allowed to withdraw from the conflict and “save his face” exposed the naivety of experts and political analysts. Perhaps, it was our misunderstanding of psychological portrait of the aggressor, its motivation and decision-making principles which had initially led the Ukrainian side onto the wrong path, the path of concessions and dialog. There is another version of the reasons for such negotiations. It maintains that our army, effectively destroyed under Viktor Yanukovych, was simply unable to repel Putin’s aggression. This explanation seemed so obvious, and the number of experts, “witnesses” and opinions supporting it was so overwhelming, that some people failed to pay attention to detail. Successful liberation advances of Ukrainian forces, including the volunteer battalions, shattered the conventional wisdom of the Ukrainian army’s “weakness.” However, our army was faced with a seemingly unexpected development in August 2014, when Russia sent an additional (I emphasize, it was just an addition) military force, thus exposing miscalculations of the Ukrainian command, which had probably just failed to notice this threat’s existence. It looks like the tragedy near Zelenopillia, when Russia shelled Ukrainian troops from its soil, and regular shellings of Ukrainian territory coming from the city of Gukovo, Rostov region, had failed to ring any bells.
Previous truces with the enemy, practiced since the president’s inauguration, and a questionable selection of participants for the negotiations made it possible for Russia to strengthen its position in eastern Ukraine in every possible way, and then create an enclave there. The Law of Ukraine “On Peculiarities of Local Self-Government in Certain Districts of Donetsk and Luhansk Regions,” passed in September 2014, was regarded by many to be an act of capitulation. The militants, in their turn, have simply ignored the law, defiantly setting their “local elections” for November 2. Let us recall that while our leaders are trying to amend the Constitution of Ukraine and talking about local elections in the Donbas under Ukrainian law, the militants have again defiantly set their dates and conditions...
On the other hand, Ukraine has stood alone against the Russian might, and there is no reason to expect that peoples of Europe or the US would fight it instead of Ukrainians. Under these circumstances, we need realistic help from those who once guaranteed our sovereignty. We must be aware that any open intervention of the international community in the conflict will lead to a retaliatory strengthening of the Kremlin’s aggression. Help from Europe and the US can be obtained only if they are confident that Ukraine has made a clear pro-European choice, which means readiness to adhere to our commitments. Experience of the modern history of Ukraine shows that the revolutionary elan and decisive heroics have some positive short-term effect even without a clear, consolidated position. However, we must not forget also that “the devil is in the details.” What are the dangers presented by the armaments withdrawal from Shyrokyne, Shchastia, Stanytsia Luhanska, Avdiivka, Pisky, other strategic locations? Will the militants comply with the Minsk Accords, which they have never done so far? Will the armaments withdrawal result in a retreat which will see us again standing alone against the enemy? The dangers of such artillery withdrawals, giving rise to waves of speculation regarding volunteer battalions’ departure from the frontlines, generate a lot of questions that need a thorough analysis of the situation rather than emotional appeals. At the moment, we are seeing the Ukrainian leadership gradually agreeing to concessions of every kind in its dealings with Russia, which cannot help but cause alarm and generate a lot of speculation.
