The negotiations between Ukraine’s President Petro Poroshenko and Russia’s Vladimir Putin in Minsk did not bring the two sides closer to the peace in the east of Ukraine, despite the hopes of many. Moreover, as Kommersant states, while using Russian, both leaders spoke different languages and drifted even more apart after the event was over.
The two presidents’ statements after the tete-a-tete prove that. While Poroshenko said that the main topic was the peaceful settlement of the situation in the eastern regions of Ukraine, Putin stated that the ceasefire conditions were not discussed in detail. Instead, the Russian president noted that it was Ukraine’s internal business, and Moscow can only assist with the creation of trust during this complicated negotiations process to achieve some agreements between Kyiv, Donetsk, and Luhansk. This is nothing but sheer cynicism. The whole world received evidence that Russia’s weapons and hirelings are present in Ukraine, and Russian regular servicemen were taken prisoners just days ago.
So, it remains unclear how the alleged agreements on the soonest possible release of hostages and beginning of consultations between border guards of the two countries and chiefs of General Staffs for securing peace in Donbas will be implemented in the situation of distrust between the two states. Even more questions arise from the agreement on the development of a “roadmap” based on a peace plan which, after the consultations will have been carried out “by the trilateral contact group, foresees the fastest possible shifting to ceasefire mode, which will be guaranteed by representatives of the OSCE monitoring mission.”
Ukraine has had two negative experiences of ceasefire which, for some reason, hurt only one side and in a result of which terrorists’ positions were only reinforced.
Deputy editor-in-chief at The Economist, author of The New Cold War: How the Kremlin Menaces Both Russia and the West Edward LUCAS was concise in his commentary regarding the result of the negotiations in Minsk: “The best ‘ceasefire roadmap’ would be for Russia to stop stirring the mutiny and focus on the renewal of good-neighborly relations with Ukraine. Lies and boasting on the Kremlin’s behalf and the obvious illegal presence of Russian troops on the sovereign territory of another country hardly provide assurance that Mr. Putin thinks about it.”
The Day addressed Ukrainian and foreign experts with a request to comment on the result of the negotiations and predict the further development of events in the east of Ukraine.
“POROSHENKO GAVE PUTIN A NEW CHANCE TO PLAY AT A PEACEMAKER”
Roman DOBROKHOTOV, leader of democratic movement “We” (Moscow):
“The main problem of negotiating with Putin is the inability to foresee whether he will adhere to promises he makes. We know that Putin said a lot about the Ukrainian crisis long before it started. For example, he stated multiple times that he would never bring troops to Crimea, long before the peninsula was occupied. He has said for a long time there were no Russian military in the so-called DNR and LNR, then they turned up there in incredible numbers. It is quite naive to believe that Putin says something sincere about the future reality in circumstances when he denies even the existing one.
“These negotiations can be viewed in a tactical sense, as a step that helps de-escalate the tension. Not specific details that can be observed are important here, but the crucial fact that Russian media space is penetrated by an idea that everything was agreed upon and peace is coming. Putin needs a way to illustrate he is a successful diplomat who has achieved something.
“There is a large number of people in Russia who have simply been brainwashed. I hope that the very fact of negotiations will provide some cooling and will give an opportunity for Ukraine to simply decrease pressure from Russian border, fortify the existing positions, and provide assistance to areas that have been already freed.
“Putin may use this truce to find a good way to withdraw the troops. But perhaps, he is not right in the head (as was earlier the case), and an occupation of Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts is an option. Indeed, Putin came up with these negotiations to secure a more convenient way to bring troops in and delay Ukraine for some time. We know that such tactics are common for Hamas. It is naive to definitely talk about the cooldown of the conflict. There are two scenarios, and both are possible.
“Poroshenko is talking about the first scenario, in which Russia would look, or at least pose, as a peacemaker. If Putin withdraws troops, he could say that he managed to bring peace to Ukraine thanks to his brilliant diplomatic skills. Then he might say that Poroshenko agreed to large federalization, or come up with some other things that were achieved thanks to the preceding conflict.
“In general, it is simple to make something up to save face, since Russian audience that watches official channels is naive and it will eagerly eat anything it is fed. The other thing, it is unclear whether Putin wants to exit the conflict while saving his face.
“Odds are high that he, like many other authoritarian leaders, crosses the line at some moment and starts losing control over his consciousness, losing touch with reality. It happened to Hitler, Napoleon, any other aggressive conqueror. At some point, both Hitler and Stalin started believing their own propaganda. There is a risk something of this kind has happened to Putin, so he would not want to end the conflict even with a ‘nice’ face.
“Poroshenko just needs to keep both possibilities in mind and perhaps act like anyone who deals with terrorists. Indeed, Poroshenko gave Putin another chance to exit the situation making the best of a bad bargain: to play at a peacemaker. The question is whether the latter will use the opportunity. We will see in the next few days if the flow of military vehicles and armor across the border continues. This is the only criterion that would allow to learn about Putin’s true intentions.”
“IT IS HARD FOR PUTIN TO ACHIEVE HIS GOALS IN UKRAINE IN A PEACEFUL WAY, THAT IS WHY THE CONFLICT WILL ENDURE”
Andrzej SZEPTYCKI, analyst at the Institute of International Relations, University of Warsaw:
“So far, the meeting between Petro Poroshenko and Vladimir Putin has not yielded anything specific. Now they are talking about a new action plan: a ‘roadmap.’ Putin openly stated what he thinks and will do if the Association Agreement between the EU and Ukraine comes into force. One meeting changes nothing in a current situation in eastern Ukraine, with people dying in a war.
“Putin also noted that the conflict in eastern Ukraine is not Moscow’s problem, but that of Kyiv, Donetsk, and Luhansk. Moscow sticks to its political course lying that this conflict is purely Ukrainian internal matter. This allows Putin meet with Poroshenko and talk about a peaceful settlement of the problem in the east of Ukraine, because officially he does not feel like a participant, an actor of this conflict.
“The sanctions imposed by the US and the EU do affect Russia in a certain way. The fact that it did not dare join the conflict in Ukraine openly and officially is a result of the West’s policy.
“Of course, it would be much more advantageous for Ukraine if the US and the EU’s positions were harsher towards Russia. It is hard to say what stand they will occupy in the future, especially if we look at Germany’s policy towards the Ukrainian issue. It is ambiguous. On the one hand, Merkel has been to Kyiv on Saturday and promised to provide 500 million euros of financial aid. On the other, she sends signals to Russian government as well: peaceful settlement is possible, relations with Russia are important as well. At the same time, Merkel said that the question of Ukraine’s membership in NATO is not considered today. Germany’s position is a very important factor.
“There is no fast and peaceful settlement of the conflict in Ukraine that would coincide with Putin’s interests. Firstly, he needs an enemy or a project of a ‘new empire’ to have the society’s support. Secondly, he needs to block Ukraine’s way towards Europe. This can be achieved only through a constitutional reform in Ukraine, a federalization (and Ukraine does not want that), or on conditions of changing Ukraine’s government. This scenario does not stand a chance either: neither before the elections nor after them; the new Party of Regions will not become the leading political force, as it happened in 2006, to alter the pro-Western course of Ukrainian politics.
“It is hard for Putin to achieve his goals in Ukraine in a peaceful way, that is why the conflict will endure. The same can be said about Ukraine: Poroshenko talks peace, but he knows well that ‘peace’ will mean some sort of surrender for Ukraine. Poroshenko understands he must continue this conflict, since he said previously there would be no negotiations with terrorists. The thing is they are not interested in the language issue. Everyone saw these people destroy the Ukrainian flag and attack Ukrainian patriots in Donetsk. These people are not interested in being part of Ukraine, therefore it will be extremely hard to settle this conflict in a peaceful way.”
“THE MORE COFFINS COME BACK FROM UKRAINE, THE STRONGER THE REASON TO STOP THE WAR FOR PUTIN”
Hryhorii PEREPELYTSIA, Ph.D. in political sciences, professor at Taras Shevchenko Kyiv National University:
“It must be understood that the means of diplomacy are severely limited during a war, since success is determined on the military front, not on the political one. Everything depends solely on the actions of our troops in Donbas. Similarly, the success of the Russian side depends on the performance of their military. They include special forces, now also regular airborne forces subdivisions, and of course, separatists, who wage Russia’s war against Ukraine rather than their own.
“The success of our military, who brought the counterattack of the Russian side in southern Donbas to naught, spoiled Putin’s picture. We saw that Putin was not insolent, cynical, or lying, but he confidently tried to avoid the topic of war in Donbas at all.
“Ukraine managed to create a multilateral format of the dialog, which in the future might become a bilateral contact channel between the fighting sides on the ministerial level. Also, an agreement to return hostages captured by Russian separatists was reached.
“But these are tactical victories. Strategic ones are out of the question, since it is impossible to achieve them by means of diplomatic tools in these circumstances.
“The intention to create a ‘security zone’ and bring OSCE observers to the border with Russia’s assistance can be regarded as Ukraine’s achievement too. This will help avoid casualties in military operations in the future. But the question is if this is doable. We had meetings in Geneva, Berlin, now in Minsk. But if we look at the implementation of agreements, there is zero progress.
“On his part, Putin did not undertake any obligations to fulfill what he had agreed to in Minsk. So, it means that the agreement on border restoration and ceasefire will be ignored.
“We need to stop thinking how to save Putin’s face. The more coffins come back from Ukraine, the stronger the reason to stop the war for Putin. The more Russian prisoners there are on our territory, the more powerful the arguments for the Russian society; it will not think about ‘our Crimea’ or ‘our Novorossia,’ it will think about the price it may cost them. This will be the strongest argument for the Russian side. Let Europe think how to save its face, while we need to fight and win.
“Europe agreed to these negotiations, since ‘peace is above all’ for it, even if Ukraine loses its territorial integrity or a part of its sovereignty. The main goal for Europe is not to let the war between Ukraine and Russia grow into a global one, the third world war. To achieve this, it wants Putin to save his face, so he would remain an influential leader, and so there would be a pretext to abandon the sanctions the EU did not want to introduce for three months, and implemented them only after the crash of the Malaysian Boeing.”
