A new Minsk framework agreement on disengagement of manpower and materiel in three combat zones may have inspired hope, in a limited number of individuals, that Russia has actually decided to comply with the accords aimed at settling the Donbas issue. However, I believe that the Kremlin has no such intentions, just as it has never had any. The fact that the number of ceasefire violations has not practically decreased from the disengagement date is proof that Russia is far from discarding its destabilization plans for Ukraine.
More likely, Moscow is trying to take advantage of its Normandy format partners’ difficult position, pretending to be willing to settle the conflict while counting on (a) France and Germany (maybe be even the US) relaxing their sanctions on Russia, and (b) pressuring the government of Ukraine into resolving the Donbas conflict on Russia’s terms. These terms have long been known: holding elections in the occupied territories under the Kremlin puppets’ supervision, in order to legitimize the LNR and DNR puppet regimes.
Both self-proclaimed people’s republics would then integrate with Ukraine’s socioeconomic realities as Russia’s agents [of influence]. Given special status, both puppet regimes would be able to effectively block all European and democratic prospects for Ukraine, including EU and NATO membership. Ukraine would be back to square one: political and economic dependence on Russia, the way it was under the Yanukovych regime.
For any Ukrainian politician, resorting to this kind of settlement in Donbas would mean political seppuku. Neither Poroshenko, nor any other political leaders in Ukraine, except for the Opposition Bloc (which is as puppet as the LNR and DNR), appear to be harboring suicidal moods. Putin, therefore, is counting on Paris and Berlin (possibly Washington) to apply pressure to Kyiv.
Merkel and Hollande will vie in an election race soon and they may well lose it. The German Chancellor and the French President both want to go down in history as noted peacemakers who succeeded in settling the conflict in Donbas, terms agreed and price paid notwithstanding (who knows, they might even rate the Nobel Peace Prize, like Barack Obama, even though he received it in a manner perhaps best described as advance payment). Both expect the peaceful settlement of the Donbas conflict to allow the lifting of most sanctions vs. Russia and to give them a better chance of winning the election campaign. President Obama, too, wouldn’t mind resting on the Donbas peace laurels. If the Ukraine conflict were suppressed, rather than settled, before the US presidential election date, Hillary Clinton would stand a better chance of beating Donald Trump, considering that the ratings of both remain practically even.
One of the intrigues of the US presidential campaign is which of the candidates is being supported by the Kremlin, which of them can serve its purpose. Most of Russia’s media are under Kremlin control (with the dissenting ones long since crowded out of the field), openly campaigning for Trump. Funny, considering that this campaigning can have absolutely no effect on the election outcome. Certain Russian politicians, who are rubbing shoulders with Putin, are making statements against Hillary Clinton. Sergei Mironov, leader of A Just Russia Party, declared: “If [Hillary] Clinton becomes President of the United States, this will be bad news for us,” adding that there’s small choice in rotten apples, and that Trump and his statements concerning friendship with Russia shouldn’t be overestimated, that all this is campaign rhetoric. The fact remains that the most important agreements were made between the USSR and US when a Republican was president, he stressed.
I believe that such statements are meant to camouflage the Kremlin’s actual stand in the matter, namely that each presidential candidate could serve its purposes, if and when. Of course, each would be less to Putin’s liking, compared to Obama. The current resident of the White House is unique, considering that America doesn’t seem to have experienced another as scandalously ineffective foreign policy. On the other hand, with the presidential race on home stretch, there are no candidates like John McCain and Mitt Romney, who would be extremely uncomfortable for Moscow.
Each presidential candidate has his/her pluses and minuses, so far as the Kremlin is concerned. Hillary Clinton, if elected, would be likely to follow in Barack Obama’s footsteps and see to it that there is no serious confrontation with Russia. This is a plus, but there is a minus, insofar as Putin is concerned. Hillary Clinton would most likely be strongly determined to resist Russia’s expansion in Ukraine and in the Middle East. Specifically, she would toughen the sanctions levied on Russia and improve relationships with the US allies in Europe and Asia. Donald Trump’s plus, in the Kremlin’s eyes, is that he would most likely screw up the relationships with Washington’s allies first and spend a long time fixing them up afterward.
His flirting with Putin and promises of better relationships with Russia remain words. What the man would actually do if he became president is anyone’s guess. A recent AP poll shows that more than 50 percent Americans don’t like Putin, with every tenth respondent supporting him. In other words, banking on Putin wouldn’t help Donald Trump win any extra points on the presidential scoreboard.
His other obvious minus, as seen by the Kremlin, is that he would almost certainly fire the current Secretary of State, along with the rest of SD. At present, most of State, if not John Kerry, are for a reset policy toward Russia. Donald Trump’s promise to “look at” the issue of the annexation of Crimea in Russia’s favor isn’t worth more than the one about recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Presidential candidates are known to have made statements like that during practically every election campaign to win Jewish Americans’ votes, but each would quickly forget all about them after coming to power. However, Donald Trump’s biggest threat to the Kremlin is his being an unpredictable politician. The man could act whichever way, including a severe confrontation with Russia, something Putin is trying to avoid at all costs. In the eyes of official Kyiv, Hillary Clinton is better than Donald Trump. She would most likely step up support for Ukraine, including lethal weapons supplies. Donald Trump’s stand in the matter of Ukraine remains anyone’s guess.
I don’t think that the US presidential election will seriously affect the Minsk process. There won’t be any substantial changes until mid-2017, not before the new US administration comes up with a new foreign political strategy. With the winter approaching, the risk of large scale combat operations in Donbas is on a downward scale, ditto the degree of pressure on Ukraine from certain Western European countries desirous of currying favor with the Kremlin.
Boris Sokolov is a Moscow-based political journalist
