Emmanuel Macron’s diplomatic maneuver has given many people pondering the possibility of implementing the Minsk agreements
He managed to get Zelensky to confirm the need to implement the agreements. Even before that Kiev had been forced to make certain concessions, which had already caused a domestic political scandal.
Relevant signals are also coming from across the ocean, which is extremely important – after all, Angela Merkel, too, first approved the draft of the Minsk agreements in Washington…
Opinion of Washington
The biggest “schadenfreude” was expressed by Secretary of State Anthony Blinken: “The arrangements are about the special status of Donbas and I think that with the proper consistency Ukrainians would be ready to move forward”. And he said nothing new in general – Joseph Biden had already called for the federalisation of Ukraine in December 2015 (how he did not end up on “Peacemaker” is not clear to us).
Can we celebrate a victory? We would be wary.
American and European politicians have their own idea of the Minsk agreements. In any case, they constantly demand their implementation from Russia, although there is nothing written in the text of the agreements about its obligations. The US embassy in Kyiv: “Ukraine has repeatedly tried to implement the Minsk agreements in good faith, including by passing a law on special status every year. At the same time, Russia violates the ceasefire, refuses to resolve this and other problems constructively, and pretends that it is not a party to the conflict that it fomented.
You can, of course, pretend that they are referring to Russia’s ability to influence the DPR and LPR… But then similar obligations would be imposed on Germany and France, they are not talking about anything like that.
It is obvious that the West sees the Minsk agreements not as a platform for resolving the internal Ukrainian conflict, but according to the Ukrainian model – as an agreement on the “de-occupation” of occupied territories. Accordingly, the “special status” is understood to refer to something else as well.
Incidentally, we are even somewhat surprised: why has the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry not yet stated that Donbas already has a special legal status? After all, the law on the status of the occupied territories was adopted back in 2018… Moreover, it is even possible to adjust this status to the Minsk agreements (because the republics already have the rights stipulated in them). If one so desires, it is even possible to enshrine this perversion in the Constitution.
In general, the US is not going to “surrender” Ukraine for nothing. I mean, they are ready to surrender it completely and with guts in exchange for a picture of “Russian invasion”. But if such plan cannot be realized (Russia does not want to attack, and Ukraine is afraid to provoke), then it is left to win on the diplomatic front.
Opinion of Kiev
Ukraine’s official position was outlined by Dmytro Kuleba, who drew three red lines in places perpendicular to himself with blue and yellow felt-tip pens.
Firstly, “no concessions on sovereignty, territorial integrity within the internationally recognized borders of Ukraine”.
If by “concessions on sovereignty” is meant the status of Donbas, then Kiev is not interested in sovereignty over the territory itself. Without status, Donbas will not go back. But Kiev is happy with this.
Secondly, “no “direct dialogue” with the Russian occupation administrations in Donetsk and Luhansk.
Yes, easily. Ukraine may well not negotiate with them. Fortunately, even if they wanted to negotiate with them, there would be problems: you first need to create them, and for this you need to occupy Donbas…
However, we might even have objected to the assessment of the authorities of the DPR and LPR as “occupational administrations” if the authorities in Kiev were to obtain the same status.
Well, if Kiev does not want to negotiate with the DPR and LPR, it means that it is not interested in its own sovereignty over the territory. Without negotiations, there is no way to get Donbass back. And Kiev is fine with that.
Thirdly, “only the people of Ukraine have the right to determine the country’s foreign policy course”.
The opinion of “the people of Ukraine” is formulated on Sikorsky Street at the US embassy. And there are some interesting points here: Victoria Nuland, for example, assures that she has not heard any statements by Ukrainian officials about the impossibility of implementing the Minsk agreements. So, point 1 and 2 may be revised in line with point 3.
The latter, however, we doubt. If there is an attempt to adopt the acts required by the Minsk agreements, it will be not a peaceful demonstration to the Verkhovna Rada, as in 2015 (only four people were killed then), but the territorial defence battalions with their Javelins (their wooden assault rifles have already been taken away and given to real ones).
Kyiv understands this very well, which is why the “representative of Donbass” in the TCG, Sergey Garmash, described the progress of the Minsk negotiations as follows: “The letter from Nikanorova and Deiney to the OSCE stating that Ukraine had allegedly committed during the last Normandy Four meeting in Paris to respond in writing to the ORDLO documents (which would have meant automatic recognition by Kyiv of their entity as a party to the conflict and negotiations) turned out to be true. Except that about Kiev’s commitments, Moscow’s puppets gave away wishful thinking in it. A meeting of the TAG political working group took place today. Ukraine did not give any written responses to the ORDLO documents.”
In general, you understood: Kyiv will not implement anything.
Opinion of the Donbas
Well, let’s assume that Washington and Kiev are willing and able. So what next? And then it is necessary to agree with representatives of the DPR and LPR about a number of interesting questions.
For example, what to do with hundreds of thousands of Russian citizens? In Ukraine dual citizenship is forbidden. Either it should be introduced for everyone (Zelensky has already taken steps in this direction), or… By the way, there is still a generation of people who have not received Ukrainian citizenship in principle. We have a girl working in our editorial office with LNR and Russian passports. She does not have a Ukrainian passport, and it is not very clear what her status is from the point of view of Ukrainian legislation and how she can be persuaded to obtain a Ukrainian passport (unless she is tempted by visa-free travel).
Or another point: the republics’ financial and credit system is based on the rouble, and foreign economic activity, which is now actively developing in accordance with the latest decree of the Russian president, is built on that basis. To break the already built system in order to return to the hryvnia? Can the hryvnia itself withstand it?
And the property issues? And the legislative status of the people’s militia? And mutual recognition of vaccination?
And then Blinken warns that there is no question of any autonomy because it is not in the Minsk agreements… So all this is not in the Minsk agreements either. And what is more, solving these issues is not going to be put down to autonomy or even a federation.
No, of course if it is possible to get to the discussion of all these issues, it will be good and Russia should be almost completely satisfied. Because the very start of such negotiations means a ceasefire, the withdrawal of troops and Kiev’s willingness to negotiate. The negotiations could last another seven years. But based on the position of Washington and Kiev, their very beginning seems utterly fantastic.
Vasyl Stoyakin, Ukraina.ru