A meeting of foreign ministers representing parties to the Normandy format (Ukraine, Germany, France, and Russia) was held on November 29. On the eve of it, Iryna Herashchenko published a selfie taken on the plane she shared with Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin and said they would “insist on our version of the roadmap: first security, then humanitarian block (the release of all hostages), and only then political settlement.” However, experts and politicians did not pin high hopes on the results of another round of the Minsk process. For example, the representative of Ukraine in the political subgroup of the Trilateral Contact Group Olha Aivazovska told the media that the meeting of the Normandy Four foreign ministers was unlikely to agree on a single draft of the Donbas roadmap. “It will rather be a meeting intended to ‘compare notes,’” Aivazovska explained.
The previous day, the former president and representative of Ukraine in the Trilateral Contact Group Leonid Kuchma spoke about the need to involve the US in the talks. Let us recall that it was Britain and the US on the one side and Russia on the other who were guarantors of Ukraine’s security under the Budapest Memorandum. That is why the Minsk meetings repeatedly get people asking the question: why some of these countries have found themselves excluded from the negotiations, while the guarantor-cum-aggressor has been imposing its agenda? There is a question to be asked about Kuchma as well: was not he the person who signed the Minsk Agreements? How come Kuchma joined the process at all, representing the interests of this country? Perhaps it happened in particular because immunity from prosecution was guaranteed for the second president in Minsk (the Gongadze-Podolsky case is known all over the world), or did not it? It is also very telling that on the one hand, Kuchma is trying to show intense activity in the negotiations, and on the other, makes trips to Russia, like one to Yekaterinburg a year ago to participate in opening of the Yeltsin Center. It is especially jarring since the Ukrainian airspace is nominally closed for Russia-bound flights. Is it due to such facts that Ukraine’s position in the negotiation process is as leaky as its skies?
REUTERS photo
Amid the impasse which the Minsk Agreements have been since the very beginning, the Ukrainian side has to take baby steps forward, particularly on the issues of the ceasefire and exchange of prisoners. But looking from a strategic perspective, the Minsk process still cannot solve the problem of the occupied territories. How to get out of this difficult situation? How realistic is the idea to involve the US representatives in the negotiating process, and find a new format overall?
“NOTHING PREVENTS US FROM ASKING THE U.S. AND BRITAIN HARD QUESTIONS ABOUT THE BUDAPEST GUARANTEES”
Andrii SENCHENKO, MP of the 5th, 6th, and 7th convocations of the Verkhovna Rada:
“The guarantees contained in the Budapest Memorandum have not gone anywhere. They just have to stop lying. When everything was built on lies, starting with the election campaign, and then we have been hearing promises for the two and a half years of the incumbent’s presidency that peace will come tomorrow, this situation is obviously difficult to get out of. But this country can only rely on the Budapest Memorandum. That is why we must return to that format and the sooner the better.
“Nothing prevents us from asking the US and Britain hard questions about their compliance with the Budapest guarantees. To do this, we need to convene a summit which should work out the mechanisms of conflict settlement. This should not directly affect the Minsk process so far. We should just stop mating a hedgehog with a snake. All parties to the Minsk talks pursue their political objectives, while the Budapest format should be a platform to discuss compliance with the guarantees that were given to Ukraine. We must have trilateral talks. Of course, the Russian Federation will not sit down at this negotiating table, so everyone should get involved and all guarantor nations should force the Russian Federation into compliance. And the agenda of these talks should be shaped by Ukraine, not Russia.
“Of course, all Europeans take care of their own interests first, and they are now deliberating on how to act given the coming elections in Germany and France. On the other hand, the new reality which has emerged after the US elections forces them to reconsider flirting with Russia, as practiced by Francois Hollande and Frank-Walter Steinmeier, since it may lead to a situation where they all find themselves on their knees.”
“RUSSIA HAS SEVERAL SCENARIOS AIMED TO DISCREDIT THE UKRAINIAN STATE”
Oksana SYROID, Deputy Speaker of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine:
“From the outset, it was wrong to not involve parties to the Budapest Memorandum in dealing with violations of the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Both the US and Britain had to be part of the negotiation process. This would, above all, greatly clarify that reality which Russia has always denied and even imposed its own view instead. The principal weakness of the Minsk Agreements is that they portray Russia not as a party to the conflict, but as a ‘peacemaker.’ Under such circumstances, resolution of the conflict, that is, an end to the war is impossible. On the contrary, anything taking us closer to it would lead to further escalation. This means that we need to look for a new format of negotiations, and this is only possible with the participation of the US and the UK, and I am convinced that it is necessary to involve Poland or Sweden as well, that is, the nations that have their own experience of dealing with Russia and their own views of what is going on here.
“The trap which Russia was preparing for us was clearly visible back in 2013. The ideas underpinning the Minsk process were voiced before the war by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Viktor Medvedchuk. Even before Minsk-2 Agreements, this formula was laid down in the law on the special order of local governance in certain raions of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. This meant that our side was implementing the principles of Minsk-2 before it even happened. The conditions which allegedly incentivized Ukraine to sign Minsk-2 were absent yet, but we were already complying with its provisions. Russia has used various tools to implement this model in Ukraine. If not for the efforts of a few people in the parliament, this model would have eventually been implemented. But the Russian Federation’s actions are not limited to this model nowadays, because they understand that the election blitz in the occupied territories has failed.
“A scenario of promoting friendship with Russia is entering the active phase at the moment, as they say ‘Let us forget about the war, we are brothers after all.’ They need it, in particular, to make Ukraine effectively sustain the occupied territories, which will still remain under absolute Russian influence. Another scenario involves spreading claims that the current regime is worse than the previous one. To do this, they showed us Viktor Yanukovych, whose words it just makes no sense to discuss, but one must wonder, nonetheless, how Ukrainian justice could allow this performance to go ahead. Yet another scenario calls for promoting abroad the idea that the Ukrainians are incapable of nation-building. Still, we have to shape our own agenda and promote it.”
