More than a year ago Russia unlawfully annexed Crimea, violating all the existing norms of International law and numerous bilateral treaties. Still in progress, almost over the same time, is the Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine, which has claimed the life of almost 6,000 Ukrainian soldiers and forced about a million Ukrainian citizens to abandon their homes in the Donbas.
Supposedly, the international community should have reacted immediately to help Ukraine defend its territorial integrity guaranteed by the UN Charter, the Helsinki Act, and the 1994 Budapest Memorandum under which the US and Britain guaranteed our country sovereignty and territorial integrity.
However, this did not happen, although there have emerged all kinds of formats over this period of time to stop the Russian aggression against Ukraine. First it was the “Geneva format” with the US, the EU, Ukraine, and Russia, then the “Normandy format” with Germany, France, Ukraine, and Russia. Finally, they came up with the Minsk format in the fall of the past year, which brought forth the notorious Minsk agreements (September 5, 2014, and February 12, 2015) to which the Russian ambassador affixed his signature and which neither Russia nor the separatists under its control are observing. Moreover, the signing of the February 12 agreement was graced with the presence of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande.
Accordingly, some experts argue that not only Putin, who also took part in those negotiations, but also Merkel and Hollande should bear the blame for failure to observe this agreements because it is the Western leaders who insisted that Poroshenko accept Minsk 1 and Minsk 2.
Many Ukrainian and Western experts have been asking for a long time why the “Geneva format,” which included the US, the world’s mightiest power, has disappeared.
The Day has asked some experts about why and how it has happened that the US and the UK, guarantors of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty under the Budapest Memorandum, gave Germany the initiative in resolving the Ukraine crisis provoked by the Russian aggression. What is to be done to make the US and Britain redouble their efforts to put an end to the Russian aggression against Ukraine and return Crimea to Ukraine?
Steven PIFER, former US Ambassador to Ukraine:
“As signatories of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, the United States and United Kingdom have an obligation to respond to Russia’s gross violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The two countries have taken significant steps – including providing financial assistance directly or through the European Union, supporting an International Monetary Fund program for Ukraine, imposing economic sanctions on Russia and other measures – but they should do more. That includes additional financial assistance if needed (and provided that Kyiv takes the necessary reform steps) and greater military assistance to the Ukrainian army, including provision of some defensive arms. Should separatist/Russian forces violate the Minsk 2 ceasefire in a major way, Washington and London should press for additional sanctions on Russia.
“I would not read the Budapest Memorandum as requiring US participation in the negotiation. It’s not clear that US participation would have produced a different negotiated result at Minsk. Given everything else in its foreign policy in-box and a desire to see Europe step up and take a greater role in its neighborhood, the White House has encouraged and supported Chancellor Merkel’s position as the leading Western actor in trying to settle the crisis. Part of this stems from the recognition that the Chancellor has a better working relationship with President Putin than other Western leaders; it also stems from confidence that the Chancellor sees this as a matter of principle that states in Europe should not be allowed to change borders by force. I do not think the absence of the United States from the negotiating table means a lack of US interest or engagement.
“Looking forward, the West should pursue three lines toward Russia: deterrence, constraint, and engagement. Deter Russia from threatening NATO members by a prudent build-up of conventional forces in Central Europe. Constrain Russia by working to strengthen countries such as Ukraine (including with financial and military assistance) in order to reduce the opportunities for Russia to make trouble in them. And engage by holding open the door to Russia for a settlement to the crisis and an improved broader relationship if Moscow genuinely changes its course on Ukraine. Unfortunately, it appears that the Kremlin’s goal remains to destabilize the government in Kyiv rather than find a solution to the crisis, so the West will have to be persistent in pushing back against Russian aggression.”
Edward LUCAS, senior vice-president at CEPA, author of the book The New Cold War:
“The UK and US won’t get involved in European security until they have to. Sadly that will come only when the public and policy makers are scared or angry. Or both.”
Roland FREUDENSTEIN, deputy director, Wilfried Martens Centre for European Studies, Brussels:
“Neither the US nor the UK feel sufficiently able to react. To be fair, at least in the US, this Russian aggression has led to a reawakening of interest in Europe in general, especially with many Republicans and conservative Democrats. But the White House is not sufficiently interested to take the lead, and it is quite normal for Obama to leave leadership roles to others, in this case, Germany. The UK is simply busy with other things, and tired of leading in security matters. Legally speaking, both would answer the question of the Budapest Memorandum as saying it commits them to react to Russian aggression but does not constitute the equivalent of a military alliance. As to getting them more interested, I believe in the US there is already some development. And the UK needs to solve its EU membership problem, then it can work more actively in foreign and security questions in Eastern Europe.”
Gerhard GNAUCK, correspondent of Die Welt newspaper, Warsaw:
“This question is twofold: why have the US and Britain ceded the initiative to Germany and why has Germany taken it. As for the first part, the UK government had (and likely still has) pressing issues of its own (Scotland and the role of the UK in the EU as a whole). In addition, Ukraine and East Europe as a whole are faraway lands when looking from the British Isles. Nonetheless, the UK was just as concerned about the war in Georgia in 2008 as Germany was. As for the US, well, that nation always has a number of global issues and objectives on its hands. Moreover, Barack Obama finds it difficult to effect an abrupt turn away from his ‘reset’ policy. When Angela Merkel assumed an important role in this situation, the US likely appreciated it. Meanwhile, I am sure we have not heard the US’s last word on the Ukrainian issue yet. Merkel, for her part, probably saw it all as a set of threats to the EU well in advance, including Putin’s Russia, the crisis in Greece, the Islamic fundamentalism, and strong populist nationalism in many EU countries – four threats all in all. Merkel fights for the unity of the EU and clearly sees that Vladimir Putin’s objective is the direct opposite of it, as he works to split the union.
“Obama is already under intense pressure to send weapons to Ukraine. What is missing? When one recalls the NATO enlargement to include Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary in 1999, the Polish diaspora in the US organized a strong American-style public relations campaign then. Such campaigns, of course, affect the outcome of the next election in the US. In short, the Ukrainian diaspora would do well to go down this route, whereby it would need to close the ranks with ‘local’ forces, which will be in any case non-Ukrainian. I think also that they should argue that such activities counteract the threat of a new ‘Union’ (this time a Eurasian Union instead of the Soviet Union). They should also remind people what were the fruits of the Soviet Union’s policies for its constituent peoples, including the Russians: the Gulag labor camps, millions of people dead, and then collapse, chaos, and poverty.”
