Swiss media reported on June 5 that Special Representative of the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office in Ukraine Ambassador Heidi Tagliavini would not complete her mandate. Initially, nothing was said on reasons for this decision, taken by Tagliavini herself, official comments were absent as well, with some people suggesting that she had just grown tired. Rumor has it that she intended to do so since quite some time and repeatedly stated that the crisis in the Donbas had dragged on for far too long, making it into an impasse without any clear way out. “She raised the question of her resignation a few times already, the talks have been a hard slog with no end in sight, and she has grown mentally and physically tired,” a source in the OSCE revealed. It is expected that Tagliavini will, nonetheless, take part in two nearest Minsk meetings, scheduled for June 16 and 23.
Let us recall that Tagliavini was appointed the Special Representative in Ukraine in June 2014 by the then chairperson-in-office of the OSCE Didier Burkhalter. At that time, the world first saw former president of Ukraine Leonid Kuchma, Viktor Medvedchuk, known as the father of Vladimir Putin’s goddaughter, OSCE Representative Tagliavini, and thugs from the Donbas sharing one table. It was noted that Tagliavini found common ground with all parties to the conflict and had a penchant for dialog with locals. What can Donbas locals tell the OSCE representatives, whom it stubbornly confuses with “the Americans,” one can only guess. Ukrainians remember Tagliavini’s mission during the war in Georgia, namely her opinion which assigned the blame for the outbreak of war in 2008 to Georgia. Russia, in fact, emerged scot-free from the conflict, as the West did nothing beyond wagging a finger at it. The dismal experience of Georgia, which bought into Russian provocation and almost lost statehood (Russian “peacekeepers” marched on the Georgian capital before stopping), forced Ukraine to take a waiting stance past year, which ended in territorial losses as well. So, from all appearances, when the would-be occupier has resolved to launch aggression, it will launch it anyway. The OSCE 2008 findings only made it clear to the Kremlin that the concerned parties in the international community were ready to turn a blind eye to the Kremlin’s invasion formulas.
On the one hand, Tagliavini’s fatigue is understandable. On the other, this fatigue requires explaining: has it come through complex negotiations, or is she tired from pressure which Russia has long put on members of the organization, forcing the rest to treat their findings cautiously. By the way, the OSCE mission was recently shelled one more time with mortars near Luhansk just as they measured depth and diameter of craters left by a similar earlier attack. The OSCE representatives definitely are in permanent danger, and some of them were even captured by the militants past year. Chairman of the Luhansk military-civil administration Hennadii Moskal, recently spoke very strongly about the role of the OSCE in Donbas, saying that they spend more times in restaurants in the conflict zone than establishing facts of the Russian invasion. Photos of OSCE-liveried white jeeps parked at upscale restaurants in the “besieged” Luhansk made rounds of the Internet. From my experience past year, I can say that the criticism that the OSCE mission in Luhansk looked at developments during the occupation “through a glass, darkly” was correct. However, representatives of the mission have been replaced over the year, and some rotations likely made a difference.
Tagliavini’s resignation was met with statements of regret from the Ukrainian government and, allegedly, the militants as well, as both sides noted that the process of negotiations would now be delayed, or even complicated. However, I find it unlikely that the negotiations themselves are full of some specific prospects of improvement. The problem does not lie in the plane of negotiations. It lies in the intentions of the aggressor, using for its attacks everything – from fake treaties and so-called truces to brazen provocations. The Minsk 2 process, which was from the start a distraction rather than full-fledged talks aimed at reaching certain results, has been finally nullified following the recent events in Mariinka. The meetings of the contact groups have brought no visible results so far, indicating the exceptional complexity of the situation. It seems that such meetings are similar to talks held with a mad bull in order to stop the beast, or at least determine its intentions that are strategically understood well for a long time anyways. With the enemy dead set on its plans of attack and attempts to destroy the Ukrainian state by all means and methods, the space for compromise is narrowing fast, of course.
Andreas UMLAND, Ph.D. in History and Political Sciences, associate professor with the department of political sciences, Kyiv Mohyla Academy:
“So far the reasons of the Swiss diplomat’s resignation are unknown. Presumably, it is connected with the recent aggravation in eastern Ukraine and new military activity.
“It will be hard to fulfill the Minsk agreements after that. The chances for success have been low before, and after the recent aggravation they look even gloomier. However, it is only an assumption that Heidi Tagliavini left because of this.
“If her resignation was caused by political reasons rather than personal considerations, this is negative, without doubt. Over the past year Tagliavini earned a very good reputation as one of the key diplomats in the Russo-Ukrainian conflict. Her resignation will leave a vacuum in the structures involved in the relations of Ukraine, Russia, and the West.
“I would not assess her political views unequivocally. She has always been trying to take a diplomatic stance. That was her value in the negotiations between Russia and Ukraine – she was not a supporter of any of the sides. In terms of this her resignation will be a problem for future relations between the West, Russia, and Ukraine.”
Interviewed by Ihor SAMOKYSH, The Day
