The phrase “blockade of the occupied territories” keeps appearing on the pages of newspapers and in TV broadcasts. Meanwhile, the fact itself is still prompting more questions than answers. No doubt, we cannot in fairness talk about a blockade of the occupied territories and maintain economic relations with the aggressor at the same time. Moreover, the government applies double standards to citizens of Ukraine who find themselves in the occupied territories, since it has imposed limits on the amount of property allowed to be brought over the line of contact by those who want to resettle in the free zone for good. Meanwhile, there are legal mechanisms allowing certain individuals and businesses to earn fortunes in the occupied territories.
Some videos which were published online show the blockade activists standing far from the railway tracks. Thus, the so-called blockade’s participants have clearly split into desperate citizens who genuinely wish to cease trade with the occupier on the one hand and the paid-for fake protesters and populists on the other. Ultimately, has the current so-called blockade really hit the occupiers in the wallets? Their losses are understandably difficult to calculate. I would like to offer a small example why blocking some roads does not mean a disruption of transportation schemes. The town of Shchastia, located near occupied Luhansk, is tightly isolated from the latter city because the only bridge has been mined. The passage of goods through it is virtually impossible. However, goods pass freely through the nearby village of Zhovte. The same formula may well be used for cargo circulation in other transport corridors. What is the effect of the so-called blockade, then?
Firstly, it has had some information impact, both inside this country and outside it. Plenipotentiary Representative of the Russian Federation in the Trilateral Contact Group in Minsk Boris Gryzlov said on February 28, in particular: “Today, before the next meeting of the Contact Group, I urge the government in Kyiv to take immediate effective measures to stop the transport and economic blockade of the Donbas.” By the way, he also said back on April 29, 2016: “This regime should be abolished, as should the economic blockade of the southeast Donbas. You cannot conduct an anti-terrorist operation (ATO) and engage in a political settlement at once.” So, is this term, which the aggressor has used since 2014, really new, and was it not deliberately put into the mouths of some Ukrainian politicians? The “blockade” allows the Russian Federation to repeatedly allege on the world stage that it is Ukraine, not the Kremlin that does not want a peaceful settlement of the conflict in Donbas, as they bet on imagined internal conflicts in Ukraine.
THE BILLBOARD READS: “ON SALE” / REUTERS photo
In turn, Prime Minister of Ukraine Volodymyr Hroisman said: “The fact that businesses there [in the occupied territories. – Ed.] dig up from Ukrainian soil coal which is urgently needed by Ukraine and Ukrainians today, that fact should not be used for blackmailing and pressuring Ukraine.” Hroisman emphasized the duplicity present in the statements of the thug bosses. In particular, he said: “We recently heard statements by some representatives of the Russian militants who called for the ‘blockade’ to be lifted immediately. My friends, I doubt that any Ukrainian will fail to understand that everything they say should be taken the other way round.” Incidentally, the “blockade” (or imitation thereof) was the pretext given by the occupiers when they resolved to “nationalize” Ukrainian-owned enterprises there. We can say that the hybrid stance, taken by the Ukrainian government at the beginning of the war and maintained ever since, was a handy prelude to this kind of manipulation which alleges that Ukraine itself abandoned its lands. Unfortunately, belated appearance of half-baked strategies for de-occupation and reintegration of the Donbas combined with a wave of political populism only to play into the hands of the Kremlin.
In the “Freedom of Speech” talk show, hosted by ICTV, Deputy Minister of Temporarily Occupied Territories Heorhii Tuka admitted the possibility of using force against the organizers of the “blockade,” which statement aroused a storm of indignation in social networks. “I believe it is unacceptable to use force against honest soldiers, but as for those organizers who did it, I have no qualms whatsoever,” he said, prompting many commentators to wonder: how can it be so that the president proposes to solve the conflict in Donbas through political and diplomatic means, but a deputy minister considers use of force appropriate against our own citizens, even if MPs? On the other hand, the real issue is not even the possible use of force against violators of the law (and the “blockade” is clearly illegal), but the government’s ongoing failure to prevent fertile conditions for speculation and corruption emerging. The classic case has been the controversy whether the war should have been called an ATO, which, on the one hand, has allowed people to use the legal loopholes, and on the other, has allowed the aggressor to disclaim responsibility.
All this provokes citizens into taking the matter into their own hands. In particular, Starobilsk activists prepared a letter to President Petro Poroshenko, which reads in part: “The terrorist organizations ‘Luhansk People’s Republic’ and ‘Donetsk People’s Republic,’ using sophisticated means and methods of ideological war, are trying to legitimize themselves and break Ukraine asunder. The enemy tries to impose conditions on us, induces us to establish economic relations, thus creating the illusion of its statehood being real. This path will surely lead the fake republics to gradual recognition and the Ukrainian people to the complete defeat... We call on you to stop any goods movements across the frontlines and eliminate all trade with the occupied territories.”
Starobilsk member of the Liberty NGO Volodymyr Hryhorenko, who personally saved a Ukrainian flag from a mad crowd in the midst of dramatic events in 2014, told The Day what forced the activists to initiate an appeal to the president.
“Before we talk about the so-called blockade, we must settle on names, terms and their meaning, otherwise such discussions will lead only to confusion,” said Hryhorenko. “I believe that to use the word ‘blockade’ in this case is generally inappropriate. The blockade means a total blocking effort, a ring without a gap in it. There is no blockade at the moment, our desire to see it notwithstanding. I am convinced that we need to break economic ties with the terrorist organizations in the pay of the occupiers, i.e., it is not really a blockade in the full sense of the word. There are more advantages than disadvantages to doing so. The war always brings losses, and we should be ready to it. There is no war without losses, both human and material. This is bad, but such is our reality, and we were not the initiators of this trouble. When our leaders tell us that we do not buy coal from the terrorists, as it is brought over from companies registered in the free zone of Ukraine, it is not so. Ukraine, at least in political statements, has recognized these territories as occupied. Of course, these areas cannot be occupied by terrorist organizations. The real occupier is Russia, while the rest are just its mercenaries. Accordingly, the companies there are subject to occupation authorities who receive their cut from trade. Of course, there is a problem caused by the fact that Ukraine has not legally recognized the ongoing war and occupation as such. Such incorrect legal basis and justifications create a fertile background for speculation and corruption, as it is claimed that we do not continue to trade with the occupier, but rather bring coal from our own mines and enterprises. It is precisely the government policy that provokes people to open a ‘second front.’ This is wrong, but it is an inevitable reaction to the uncertain behavior of the elite. In addition, one should not use the term ‘smuggling,’ as it may only cover goods crossing the national border, and not the line of contact or frontline.”
Hryhorenko believes that the boundary crossing points should operate as a valve. That is, citizens should be allowed to cross from the occupied territories and provided with appropriate assistance in the free territory, but return movements should be banned.
Denys Denyshchenko, a Luhansk community activist who now lives in Sievierodonetsk, is less radical in assessments and approaches, but agrees that there really is neither a sustainable strategy for de-occupation of the Donbas nor clarity in the definitions regarding the so-called blockade. “The situation with the blockade is really ambiguous,” Denyshchenko told The Day. “The official position of the national leadership, with which I agree, is that laws must be followed. But you must understand that the government should have long ago investigated the issue of illegal movement of goods, which has persisted for three years, and they should have worked out a clear national strategy for it. For me, as a citizen of Ukraine, it is unclear why the oligarchs may take coal and metal from the occupied territories, while ordinary citizens cannot take out their property and equipment with them. What is the result of the so-called blockade over recent years? Hryvnia is not circulating anymore in the occupied territories, and Ukrainian goods are not present there. Accordingly, the Kremlin-occupied territories have been isolated from Ukraine while trade with Russia has increased markedly. Furthermore, isolation on our part extends not only to food, but also to information. Such a blockade is harmful not for the occupiers, but for Ukrainians themselves. In this way, we are losing the Ukrainian presence in parts of the Donbas.”
“As for the ‘blockade,’ which is now organized by some politicians, I agree that it is not systemic enough,” Denyshchenko said. “The occupiers will not suffer any major damage, but it may have some political effect, which its organizers likely seek to achieve. I think that as unexpectedly as the ‘blockade’ began, it will also be over. These actions have been useful in that the movement of goods attracts more attention now. However, the issue must be tackled in all its complexity by a joint action of the National Security Council and the cabinet. It is necessary to consider the interests of the regular citizens of Ukraine, not only the interests of the oligarchs and financial-industrial groups. Responsible officials should have prepared a plan and submitted it long ago. The Cabinet of Ministers has allegedly drafted a reintegration plan, but it is controversial. What kind of total ‘blockade’ can one talk about if the occupied territories have their border with Russia completely open? We must realize that ‘hybrid warfare’ is being used against us. Accordingly, we have to respond adequately, not by some linear solutions. Unfortunately, the current blockade is just an incentive for corruption, including in the security agencies, and illicit enrichment of illegal groups that control the trade flows. To stop it, we need to legalize most trade. I see people being detained for carrying 500 kilograms of meat, even as columns of trucks and trains pass unmolested. It is no secret that these trains do not only bring coal that is destined for thermal power stations. There is big money involved, and our lack of systemic approach plays against Ukraine in this case.”
