|
|
|
|
|
Vasily Stoyakin
Kiev Author: Lyubomir Dankov Part 1 | |
Vasily Stoyakin. The war in Donbass. Part 1. | |
|
In general I’m one of those who criticise Minsk Protocol. I have some reasons to think negatively about it. Certainly, I agree that it played some positive role. Signing of the Minsk Protocol stopped the intense fighting, helped to start negotiations that is positive on its own. But I don’t think that it’s possible to come to agreement basing on the principles of the Minsk Protocol. I’ll try to explain. First of all, reconciliation is coming slowly because Ukrainian side still has a desire to continue fighting. It can be explained by the idea of a war as of something profitable. There are a lot of things that give money. It’s work of volunteers who keep something for themselves, it’s military orders that are often carried out in a not transparent way, and obviously a lot of the money goes for corruption. At last, it’s plundering made by troops in the area of hostilities. In general, there are a lot of people in Ukraine who want the war to continue as long as possible even in such a stagnant way. For Ukrainian politics it’s also an important excuse for ineffective work. So, when someone asks why the economy is going down, why the social situation is bad, why something bad is happening and something good isn’t happening their first explanation is “We have a war”, “we are fighting”, “Can’t you understand, we meant well, but bad Putin interfered and it began”… Nearly all top Ukrainian officials say it. Just today I read an interview of a secretary of the National Security council Turchinov, who being an interim President gave an order to start the anti-terroristic operation, he says that everything that we failed is the result of the war that he had started. Completely brilliant attitude! Now let’s move to the Minsk Protocol. The fulfilment of the Minsk Protocol is completely blocked by Ukrainian side right now “because security isn’t provided and the fire isn’t stopped”. The situation is very strange actually. As a matter of fact, the side guilty in continuing the fire is the Ukrainian one, and it’s even not being hidden. That very Turchinov stated in December of the previous year that they were freeing Ukrainian land meter by meter. In Donbass it works in the following way, the Ukrainian troops are slowly seizing the separation route between the Ukrainian army and the Donbass militants, whereby both politicians and militaries speak about it quite openly. All the information appears in the media and when the militants rebuff, Ukrainians start to cry that the militants are breaking the peace accords, but guys you were those who had started. So the excuse used by Ukrainian government not to fulfil the Minsk Protocol is artificial all by itself, it’s quite enough for them to do nothing , not to give the troops orders to seize the route that they seized and that’s it. The quantity of shelling and gunfights will decrease significantly and it will be possible to speak about ceasefire if not complete ceasefire then at least very substantial one. Under the pretext of continuing fighting the president demands “Let’s fulfil the military part first and then we’ll turn to the politics”. |
It’s unacceptable, it’s completely against the Minsk Protocol. As for the Minsk Protocol itself, there are two difficult aspects that make the fulfilment of the Minsk Protocol very difficult. The first thing is that the Minsk process should lead to the dialogue between the Ukrainian government and representatives of “certain areas of Donetsk and Luhansk regions”, as the republics are named in the Protocols. The problem is that Kiev authorities believe that Donetsk and Luhansk republics are terroristic organisations and of course they don’t want to have any negotiations with leaders of the terrorists. At the same time there hasn’t been found any way out of the situation. It’s impossible to make Kiev authorities have negotiations with the people who are terrorists as the authorities believe. And there is no other solution for the problem. It’s too late to look for some other people who can represent Donetsk and Luhansk side. Also Ukrainian and Donetsk & Luhansk leaders can’t find any common ground for the negotiations. This is the first big problem and actually the main obstacle in the Minsk process. Real dialogue can’t be organised even with the help of mediators. It seems to me they try not to communicate with each other. It’s the first thing. The second problem is that the Minsk Protocol ends at the decision when Ukrainian army gains control over all the borders. The process of political regulation has to be finished by the moment. The people who worked out the protocol seems to think that the Ukrainian authorities will change during the implementation of the protocol and there will be no reasons for fear. I can’t understand at all what the background of the idea was, because actually there is no items of the Minsk Protocol that Ukraine can’t fulfil. Ukraine can easily fulfil everything. They can change the constitution, enact new laws and then after moving troops in the territory of the republics they can start a mopping up operation. They will be able to repeal all the laws. Ukraine even has remarkable experience of repealing its own constitution by the decision of the constitutional court. So there is no insurance that Ukraine will fulfil the Protocol. Another thing is that Ukrainian authorities didn’t think that they would have to fulfil anything of Minsk Protocol as the people who are taking part in the process from the very beginning told me. When the protocol was signed, Russia had an economic crisis, Kiev authorities had reasons to think that Russia wouldn’t be able to support the republics of Donbass because of the sanctions. So they would regain the territories without keeping any promises. It has become clear by now that it wouldn’t work, Russia has been going well since February 2015. And Kiev authorities don’t have any idea how to fulfil the protocol, so they are just trying to play for time as long as it’s possible. The problem of the Minsk Protocol is that it stops on a certain idea and doesn’t provide any guarantee of preserving the rights and even the lives of the people who live in the territories. |
|
Vasily Stoyakin
Kiev Author: Lyubomir Dankov Part 2 | |
Vasily Stoyakin. The war in Donbass. Part 2. | |
|
As for the future relations between Donbass and Russia, Donbass won’t join Russia in the foreseeable future. In any case, great domestic transformation of Russia itself is needed first. Russia doesn’t have the will to enlarge its territory. Theoretically in some possible future, if Donbass isn’t reintegrated in Ukraine, it can be recognised by Russia as Ossetia and Aphasia. But it will take rather long time, several years, and some unique conditions are needed to make the Russian authorities choose this way. There is no sense in discussing it right now. It’s especially true because Russia doesn’t need Donbass on its own. The main part of production capacity of Donbass is replaced by import in Russia and isn’t needed. Speaking about Donetsk Coal basin, it was stated that there is no prospects for it as far back as in the Soviet time. So, there hasn’t been any financing of capital construction of the mines for nearly half a century. It seems to me that the mines are being closed and since the time when Ukraine became independent (1991 year) only one new mine was opened and one or two was modernised. And it’s at the time when Ukraine is in great need of Donetsk coal. So, Russia doesn’t need Donbass from the economical point of view. But they expect to use it for putting pressure upon Ukraine. But to make Donbass really influence Ukrainian politics it’s necessary to return it back to Ukraine. But Donbass doesn’t want to return back! Moreover Ukraine doesn’t want to regain it, though it constantly says the opposite. As Leonid Makarovich Kravchuk, the first president of Ukraine said recently Ukraine is interested in the Donbass territory, but it isn’t interested in the people who live on the territory, first of all, because the people will disturb the present political situation. So the opposition parties will get support from the people of Donbass. Nowadays there is no opposition in Ukraine. All the parties of Verchovna Rada one way or another belong to political forces of Maidan. The parties who don’t belong to Maidan are represented by single deputies who entered the parties after the Maidan. So the situation is at an impasse in some respect. The people of Donbass don’t want to return to Ukraine because they are naturally afraid, and Kiev authorities don’t want its reuniting because it isn’t needed. It seems to me, the Minsk Protocol won’t work until the sentiments are overcome somehow. As for the introducing of peacekeepers… To say the truth I don’t see any sense in such a measure. |
As far as I know from my experience, peacekeepers are usually introduced after the ceasefire. If it’s impossible to achieve a ceasefire right now, it won’t be possible to introduce the international peacekeeping troops, because there is no conditions, the safety of the peacekeepers can’t be ensured. The second thing is that in general it’s not what we need in the current situation. Presence of foreign troops will lead to increasing of the tension. And Russia or Belarus may wish to support the troops and it’s completely unacceptable for the Ukrainian authorities. So, I think it’s possible to manage without it. As for the role of the UNO and the OSCE, their position is double-faced. From one side the UNO supported the Minsk Protocol (I want to repeat that I belong to critics of the protocol). It’s undoubtedly positive because the Minsk Protocol wouldn’t have had any certain status without the decision of the UNO. It was signed by a stranger without any certain responsibilities. To make it clear, Leonid Kuchma, who presents Ukraine in the protocol, has a status of the Preseident of Ukraine because he held the post and he also has a status of a representative of the current president of Ukraine, Poroshenko, but actually he has no right to sign any protocols. So the Minsk Protocol isn’t an international protocol that is binding on Ukraine. And observing the decision of the UNO that includes the Minsk Protocol, even if it isn’t compulsory, but it’s strongly advisable for Ukraine. From this point of view the role of the UNO is positive. If we speak about the role of the OSCE, it is strongly uncertain. Both sides of the conflict have strong complaints against the OSCE. So, when any kind of shooting begins I open discussions of Donbass citizens and the people who support real Ukrainian government on facebook. The both sides criticise the OSCE because they are blind to those who shoot. They record that the ceasefire was broken but they don’t record who broke it. I think this’s a key point, because the ceasefire is being broken, the people know it without the OSCE reports, they hear it with their own ears, sometimes they feel with other sensory organs what and where lands or denotes. The OSCE probably has a different function. Dissatisfaction with the work of the OSCE mission is one of the reasons that urges the politics to invite and create police or military peacekeeping mission, but I’ll repeat once again it will also turn to be ineffective. |
|
Vasily Stoyakin
Kiev Author: Lyubomir Dankov Part 3 | |
Vasily Stoyakin. The war in Donbass. Part 3. | |
|
Generally, before I comment on the separation of Crimea and Donbass it’s necessary to explain that the process has had a long history. If we return to the past we’ll see that these territories have never belonged to Ukraine. The South part of the modern Ukraine was a wild steppe where Tatars who were nomadic lived until the second part of the XVIII century. There were no Ukrainians, no Russians, no any other Slavonic people in these regions. As for Donbass, one part of it historically belonged to Zaporozhian Cossacks. So Cossacks lived there. They had more or less stable settlements. All the territories including Crimea were joined to the Russian Empire in the XVIII century under Ekaterina the second. Naturally the territory wasn’t considered Ukraine, because Ukraine didn’t exist at the time. The autonomy of the so called Cossack Hetmanate (an autonomous Cossack state where Cossacks mainly lived) was cancelled at the XVIII century. So the territory never belonged to Ukraine. When Ukrainian state (the Ukrainian Socialistic Republic) started to be created in the beginning of the XX century (in 1917-1918 years) there were huge doubts regarding the regions. Whether it was worthy to include them into the territory of the Ukrainian people republic or not, and whether they will agree to be included. If we speak about Donbass, Donetsk-Krivorozhian republic was on the territory of Donetsk, Luhansk, Dnepropetrovsk (Dnepr), Charkiv regions. It was a Soviet Bolshevists republic based on the territorial basis, not on the national one. The territory presented a separate economic region with stable internal communications and definite degree of self-government within the Russian Empire. Donbass didn’t possess real autonomy, but there was a bit different situation from neighbour provinces of the Cossacks Hetmanate. Donetsk-Krivorozhian republic was liquidated with time, and the main part of its territory entered Soviet Ukraine after the end of the civil war. It was made for purely political reasons. It was important for the Soviet leaders of Moscow Kremlin to mix mainly rural Ukraine with industrial proletariat of Donetsk coal basin. Bolshevik Party relied mainly on industrial workers and there weren’t a lot of industrial workers in Western Ukrainian regions. Introducing of Donbass into Ukraine was made if not in a forced way but definitely against the will of the main part of the local people, it was made not with the aim of development of the region but right on the contrary. Crimea became a part of Ukraine even later, in 1954. As for the causes of the event, there were and still are a lot of different speculations, pseudo - historical versions, some of them are very interesting. But generally it’s obvious from the documents of Supreme Council of the USSR that the biggest part of communications, of Crimea resources that are necessary for decent living are placed in the Ukrainian territory. Kerch Bridge didn’t exist then. All motor roads, railways ran through the territory of Ukraine. Gas, petrochemicals, electricity and even fresh water were delivered from Ukrainian territory. The process has changed by now up to a certain degree. So electricity is received from Russia, all the other resources will also be received from that side. But at the time of the Soviet Union it was related to economic reasons. It was more convenient to develop Crimea when there was a common planning for Crimea and Ukraine. It didn’t play any significant role within the borders of the Soviet Union; Crimea inhabitants would always have had a certain degree of independence. They obeyed Kiev authorities only nominally and the separation of Ukraine in 1991 was an unpleasant surprise for them. It was possible to separate Crimea from Ukraine but the possibility wasn’t realized for a number of reasons. The will of the people was stated on the elections and on the referendum but Russia didn’t aim at keeping Crimea at that moment. Yeltzin (the president of Russia of that time) had a lot of different problems. Crimea remained a part of Ukraine without being integrated to it neither in political nor in psychological way. It’s necessary to understand two things about the region. Crimeans are mainly Russians; Ukrainians are an ethnical minority there. The situation in Donbass is completely the same. More than a half population there believe that they are Russians and associate themselves with Russia. Qualified workers were brought to the Donbass industrial area during its creation; they were miners mainly who came from traditional mining regions of Russia, mainly from Ural. The main reason for these two regions to stay apart was the mixed structure of the inhabitants, the biggest part of the people are Russians by origin and self-identification. These are two key reasons for the separation of the regions. They are ethnically different even from neighbour Dnepropetrovsk (Dnepr) and Charkiv regions. The people are mainly Russian in Luhansk and Donetsk. It’s the first reason. The second reason is that Ukraine considered the regions to be unreliable from the very beginning. The propaganda against Donbass and Crimea began even before the separation of Ukraine from the USSR. |
As soon as Ukraine’s national revival began, the attacks on Crimeans and the people who lived in Donbass began because they weren’t enough conscious about Ukrainian national identity, because “they are Russians who have occupied authentic Ukrainian territories”. Although I’d like to state once again that most of the territories aren’t originally Ukrainian. Actually, the propaganda and psychological base for the conflict has been created for a quarter of a century. It was made rather consistently, well organised. That’s why a great part of Ukrainians, especially those who conceived the Nazi ideology started to think of Crimeans and inhabitants of Donbass as enemies without any significant psychological efforts. It was natural for them. They were prepared that these people are enemies and sooner or later it would be necessary to fight against them in one way or another. It would be necessary either to make them speak Ukrainian and conceive the idea of Ukrainian nation as close as Galizkiye (West Ukrainian) Nazi conceives it, or to make them leave the country. In both cases it would be necessary to supress them with weapon if they protest. The preparations for the conflict started a long time ago; the coup d’etat in 2014 provided a significant change of the situation. The misunderstanding between the regions had been growing for a quarter of a century and the coup-d’etat worked as a starting point for the beginning of the violent conflict. Actually, it wasn’t even the coup-d’état itself. Attitude towards Yanukovich was as bad in Crimea and the South-East of Ukraine as in any other region of Ukraine. The authority wasn’t popular in any part of Ukraine. But the people who came to power after the coup-d’état, were even less able to present and promote the interests of South-East of Ukraine. The key reason was the attempt of the Verchovna Rada to cancel the Law on the language. The Law practically represented the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages in Ukrainian law system. The Charter was accepted by Ukraine and the law was enacted to implement it. The law was criticised for incompleteness, because it didn’t sufficiently guarantee the rights of language minorities. By the way, the law didn’t apply to native Russian language speakers, because Russian can’t be called the language of linguistic minorities as the biggest part of Ukrainians speak it and in European countries the second official language would have been adopted under such conditions, but Ukraine isn’t really a European country, so they’ve chosen such a complicated way. The abolition of the law, though it wasn’t signed by president and it doesn’t really work yet, triggered the so called Russian spring. There were spontaneous mass protests in all the regions of the South-East of Ukraine, Odessa, Nikolaev (Mykolaiv), Herson, Zaporizhya, Dnepropetrovsk (Dnepr), Charkiv regions, Donbass and Crimea. What happened then? Of course, the population composition played an important role in the process. I’ve already said that Donbass and Crimea had special distinguish features, these were Russian regions in Ukraine. They are different. It’s the first, and the second is that Donbass has a different population structure. There is a very big percent of industrial working class. And the industrial working class has a tendency and ability for self-organization in work and other communities. It has the ability to defend its rights collectively. The third thing is the behaviour of regional elites. It’s necessary to understand that every region of Ukraine has its own elite groups, which build relations with each other and with Kiev authorities in different ways. Usually Kiev authorities consider the opinions of regional elites. There are several competitive groups in most of the Ukrainian regions. But there were no competition in Donetsk and Luhansk regions. Nearly whole Donbass was ruled by elite group of the richest person of Ukraine, Rinat Akhmetov. The elite groups of Luhansk region were ruled by Alexandr Efremov group. I’m explaining this to give you a chance to understand the process. Really, the Russian spring was supported by the elite groups in different regions. The groups wanted to get inviolability for themselves and for their business from the new authorities. That’s why they supported the mass protests, the protests against Kiev authorities. In the regions where there were several elite groups, the competitive groups united, asked Kiev for help and suppressed the Russian spring. It happened in most of the regions. Though if we speak about the regions that I’ve just enumerated, most people there think negatively about the Kiev authorities, and positively about improvement of the relations with Russia and even about creating an economic or political union with the country. As for Donbass, Kiev authorities had to negotiate with Akhmetov and Efremov. But at that moment Kiev didn’t want to talk to anyone. It wasn’t really a mistake, but a consistent position of the new government that came to power after the revolution. They didn’t want any negotiations. They only wanted to trample everyone in a rough way (they have won by trampling everyone why would they stop doing it?). When they faced resistance, they didn’t even think that it was necessary to talk to the opposition to prevent the disintegration of the state. So, they didn’t consider this way at all. Later as we can see nowadays, modern Ukrainian authorities managed to come to an agreement with Akhmetov and to neutralize Efremov’s group. But it’s too late already because Akhmetov and Efremov don’t have ascendancy in Donbass now. New elite has emerged there after the revolution and they have to speak to it. The situation in Crimea was different. According to the information that I have, and according to the conclusions of many other people, the situation in Crimea was bad from the very beginning, it was assumed that an international conflict will arise. |
|
Vasily Stoyakin
Kiev Author: Lyubomir Dankov Part 4 | |
Vasily Stoyakin. The war in Donbass. Part 4. | |
|
An international conflict was about to arise in Crimea. Actually the conflict began. The initiators of the conflict were Crimean Tatars, who have been seen as allies, the only allies in Crimea for the Ukrainian authorities, because the majority of Crimeans were opposed to Kiev authorities since the day when independence was declared. As I see it, the USA who were behind the coup-d’état and the new Ukrainian government thought that such conflict most likely an armed one will weaken Russia. First of all the conflict will force Russia to withdraw its Black Sea Fleet from the bases that were placed in Crimea. In other words bloodshed had to begin in Crimea. Actually it began. On the 26th of February there were conflicts in front of the building of Crimea Supreme Soviet, two people were killed there. Nowadays in Ukraine 26t of February is observed as the day that marked the beginning of resistance to Russian aggression. Actually, a full-scale international conflict, that would include real armed conflicts, casualties from both sides, interference of armed forces, could start after that day. In general, the future of Crimea was vague, most likely very fearful. I can’t say for sure what the Russian authorities were guided by, but most likely they calculated that they would be called guilty for the rise of the conflict and more than that they would be forced to withdraw Black Sea Fleet. Moscow didn’t like such a prosoect, and an attempt, a successful attempt to introduce Russian troops was made. But actually they were not troops, but representatives of a private military company. So called “polite little green men” seized control of nearly the full Crimean territory on the 27th of February. Ukrainian army wasn’t able to resist. Mainly because of the unexpectedness, because of the considerable superiority in quality, because Ukrainian army was completely unready for battle at that moment, and simply because no one could think that Russia would undertake so quick and abrupt steps, Crimean authorities were able to announce the separation of Crimea from Russia, to hold a referendum and join Russia. Crimean story ended on this. Ukrainian government wasn’t able to resist in any way, because the activity of Russia was unexpected not only for Kiev authorities who didn’t have the resources to prevent it in any way but it was also unexpected for the USA. It was completely unexpected, and Kiev authorities were forced to abandon any plans that applied to Crimea right at that moment. On the other hand they managed to repress the protests in most of the regions of Ukraine. And then the Donbass question arose. I’ll repeat once again, no one was going to negotiate, an anti-terroristic operation was announced and an attempt to make Donbass obedient in a military way was made. Actually, I think they were more interested in furthering the conflict than in making Donbass obedient, because the first encounters in Donbass were between armed Nazi forces of the Right Sector, Ukrainian police, Ukrainian internal troops and volunteer battalions. One of the most known encounters happened in Mariupol on the 9th of May. Azov Battalion formed of supporters of Nazi organisations entered the city. There were some people’s volunteer corps but they didn’t have any weapon and naturally they couldn’t resist an armed battalion. As Battalion Azov didn’t face any resistance, they seized local police department, fired it, killed several police officers and then started a skirmish with a sub-unit of internal troops who came to support the police. The same things were happening everywhere. The notorious incident in Slovyansk, when the town was seized by Strelkov (Igor Strelkov was the leader of the Donbass rebels in Slovyansk in 2014 – translator)… The first casualties were a result of skirmishes between the Security Service of Ukraine and one of the Nazi groups. Rebels weren’t the first who opened open fire; Ukrainian forces started shooting among themselves first. So, that was that. As the war in Crimea didn’t work well, they started to provoke the war in Donbass, this said they’ve provoked it. Ukrainian government had some goals in creating the conflict. |
They managed to solve a lot of problems with the help of the conflict: they raised the society to support the new government, though the attitude towards the new government was very wavering; the most radical Nazi who could prevent the formation of the new government were sent away from Kiev to Donbass; and a lot of other little problems were solved. Kiev was interested in the war from the very beginning; and taking everything into account the USA were also interested in the war, they wanted to involve Russia into the Ukrainian conflict so that it would be possible to impose sanctions against Russia. The sanctions were imposed because Russia had seized Crimea. Despite of the fact that it was done not only by agreement, but with substantial support of the Crimean people; it wasn’t completely legal, it was an annexation. Annexation of Crimea by the Russian federation hasn’t been legally recognised yet because the changing of borders can be done only after a national Ukrainian referendum. There hasn’t been any referendum, and even if it had been, some Ukrainians would have voted against it. That’s why I don’t know how to get Ukrainian agreement for the separation of Crimea for the current moment. The situation in Donbass was different. Two people republics were created there, militia arose. Considerable part of territory was lost after a while, but the resistant movement was growing and Russia started to provide military support. A lot of volunteers started to come into the region; weapon and military hardware were already in abundance in Donbass, because very big armouries were placed in the region, and with the increasing of the quantity of militia, with the arrival of commanding officers who had military experience in Chechnya and Afganistan the Ukrainian attempt of reconciliation with the help of military force failed. That’s why there is naturally a connection between the conflicts in Crimea and in Donbass. So, if nothing had happened in Crimea, there probably wouldn’t have been any fighting in Donbass, most likely the Trade Unions House in Odeessa wouldn’t have burnt, though it’s naturally difficult to predict. The people who came to power in Kiev were interested in arising of a conflict. Let’s move on. As for referendums. The referendums in these two regions had different legal status. The point is that the referendum that took place in Crimea can be allowed by Ukrainian law system. A possibility for the holding of a referendum in Crimea is provided by Ukrainian Constitution. Of course, Crimea didn’t have a right to secede from Ukraine. Ukrainian law doesn’t allow it. But basically the separation of Crimea from Ukraine was as legal as the separation of Ukraine from the Soviet Union in 1991. In 1991 another referendum with rather ambiguous question was hold, but the decision was made in a bit different way. The Soviet Union had fallen by the moment. Ukraine hasn’t fallen yet, so Kiev can state that the separation of Crimea was done in illegal way. But, I’m repeating, Crimeans always thought that they were forced to belong to Ukraine. As for Donbass, the legality of referendum in the region is doubtful for me. It’s not very reliable from legal point of view, but I can say for sure that both referendums were an expression of the will of the people who live in the regions. The results of the referendum are in approximate accordance with the reality that was present at that moment. We can’t say that the people were forced, that they were betrayed. The people happened to be in a situation when they could express their views on the situation and they expressed it. Their opinion was that they had anything to do with the new Ukrainian authorities, they wanted to separate from Ukraine but they weren’t going to build their own state. As they considered themselves Russians by origin and culture they wanted to return to Russia. Crimea managed to do it. But Russia didn’t accept Donbass. Why did it happen? Was it a mistake or not? It’s another question. Russian analysts should answer it, they have their own opinion, but it doesn’t matter now. |
|
Vasily Stoyakin
Kiev Author: Lyubomir Dankov Part 5 | |
Vasily Stoyakin. The war in Donbass. Part 5. | |
|
As for the status of conflict in Donbass, I think that it’s a civil war undoubtedly that really started as long ago as in 2013. It’s a confrontation between traditionally Nazi and traditionally pro-Russian regions. Actually the fighting with different intensity was present in most of the Ukrainian regions. If we speak about the end of 2013th and the beginning of 2014th, regional authorities, security forces, military warehouses were seized in Western Ukraine mainly, then the process also started in Eastern Ukraine. Thanks to the armed conflict in Donbass, Kiev authorities managed to localise the civil war in one region, so the civil war that was present on the territory of the whole country turned into an international conflict between Ukraine and two unrecognised republics. As for the role of Russia… Nowadays Kiev authorities insist that it’s a war between Russia and Ukraine, but it’s a very odd war, because Kiev hasn’t done anything from its strong statements. In other words, if there is a war, something has to be done, diplomatic relations have to be severed, martial law has to be introduced after all. None of this was done, so we can’t speak about the war between Russia and Ukraine from this point of view. Statements of Ukrainian authorities on that issue aren’t legally correct and simply irresponsible from the political point of view. If you want it to be a war between the two states you should behave in the appropriate manner. Properly speaking, this is the reason why people don’t believe Kiev authorities. If there is a fact, let’s say annexation of Crimea by Russia, it’s one thing, but we can’t state an armed invasion of Russia into Ukrainian territory. There hasn’t been any evidence of presence of regular Russian army in Donbass, miraculously the USA and Europe have been doing their best not to find Russian troops there. Even if the troops are present there, there is no evidence. It’s enough to compare the photos made by the USA reconnaissance satellites, when they take photos of the Russian military base in Syria, you can read the numbers on planes and armoured personnel carriers in the photos. And when these very satellites make photos of Donbass territory, you can see only indefinite black shadows, it’s impossible to define who they belong to. So, it’s impossible to determine whether it’s Russian military equipment, whether it belongs to any regular army or not. There is an exhibition of trophy military equipment with very strange inscriptions in Kiev Museum of the Second World War (earlier it was called the Museum of Great Patriotic War). It’s written on special tables “There are special tactical signs on the equipment that shows that the equipment belongs to this or that Russian regular military unit”. But guys, the tactical sign is a white triangle on the doors of a lorry. I don’t know who and when drew it, why should I believe that this triangle was drawn by Russian troops in Russia. Why should I think that when the troops entered the country that they are officially have war with, they didn’t paint the triangle over? There is an armoured personnel carrier and it’s written that its tyres aren’t made in Ukraine and its engine can be made only in Russia and aren’t delivered to Ukraine. Guys, there are no tyres on the armoured personnel carrier. Evidently they have burned in a fire. Why should we trust this table? As for the engines, I know for sure that in the previous 2016 year, Ukraine bought a consignment of Russian diesel engines for these very APCs from Moldova. And in 2014, it seems to me, up to September, the engines were delivered from a plant of Russian concern GAZ (Gorky Automobile Plant) and were installed in Ukrainian APCs. Why was it done? Because the contract was terminated, by the way it was terminated on Ukrainian initiative when the military-technical collaboration stopped. That’s why there is no evidence for Russian participation in the conflict, though I admit that Russian militaries are present there as advisers and probably they take part in the fighting. But, I’m repeating it hasn’t been proved by anyone. As for the status of the operation… Actually it’s a military operation. The status of an anti-terroristic operation is stated in Ukrainian legal system. An anti-terroristic operation should be deployed by forces of Security Service of Ukraine. Regular military departments shouldn’t be involved in an anti-terroristic operation – it’s prohibited by law. When an anti-terroristic operation is conducted all the civilians must be taken out from the area. Shelling of the towns with anti-terroristic goals in strong terms contradicts the very idea of an anti-terroristic operation. I’ll admit, by the way, that even at the official level, even in speeches of the president of Ukraine one may hear the same motive as in different patriotic groups in social networks; the idea that Ukraine forces Putin to compliance at negotiations by shelling of Donbass towns. |
Anyhow, it’s a completely brilliant idea of the Ukrainian government: we’ll shell Ukrainian towns in order to make a president of another state who doesn’t have any connection to the towns behave differently in negotiations. I even don’t know how to call it, we can’t say that they lack logic; it’s simply an unimaginable cynicism. In other words, from the legislative point of view this is not an anti-terroristic operation, there is no defined legislative status for the activity. So, according to the Ukrainian law system the military operation from the very beginning has been a crime tolerated by top Ukrainian officials, by the leaders of Ministry of Defence, General Staff of armed forces. That’s all that can be said about the status. As for the question, what Ukrainian authorities had to do in 2014, when the conflict was beginning… I can’t imagine any different behaviour of the authorities, who came to power in 2014. Because there were people who didn’t have any legal status to hold negotiations with anyone or to make any decisions, their own status was highly doubted. President Yanukovich himself was dismissed in a completely unconstitutional way, the new president elections were convened completely illegally, an old-new Constitution of 2004 was established completely illegally (There are two main versions of Constitutions in Ukraine, the first one was created in 1996 when Ukraine became an independent country, then in 2004 some changes were introduced (two main differences are: parliament works 5 years instead of 4 as it was according to the previous constitution, and parliament possess more power than president), in 2010 Constitutional reform of 2004 was declared illegitimate and cancelled, in 2014 the Constitution of 2004 was establi shed again - editor), everything was done awfully illegally and it could be concealed only with the help of armed force. Moreover, we are speaking about carpet-baggers who lack political accountability, who are infected with nationalistic ideas and political dictatorship, and generally it was strange to expect that they would behave differently, actually it’s impossible to expect any other behaviour from them even now. Nowadays all these people form political elite, they belong to the party of war that has been doing everything possible to never end the conflict. And President Poroshenko manoeuvre between the opinion of the biggest part of Ukrainian citizens, more than 65% of Ukrainians seek a peaceful resolution of the crisis according to social data and president has to respect their views, and on the other hand he has to respect the view of the political class that was formed after the revolution and the main part of which insist on continuing of the war. And the president avoids taking sides in different ways. In the beginning of the year he started to say that the war has finished, now, beginning with Munich Conference he has renewed aggressive-military rhetoric and I’m afraid that it may lead to strengthening of the conflict. I can’t see another course of events. The conflict could start in other regions but if Russia hadn’t interrupted, the most active fighting would have been led probably on the territory of Crimea. In any way it would have been a war and Russia would have been involved in it in one way or another. Now I’ll state my opinion as for the correct solution of the problem. To say honestly, returning to the disadvantages of Minsk Protocol, I think that the key disadvantage is that the USA haven’t been participating in it from the very beginning. America has been playing a great and exclusive role in Ukrainian politics. Actually, there is no Ukrainian politics, there is private policy of the USA in Ukrainian territory. Everything else is “squabble” of Ukrainian politics to get the right to get closer, so that American ambassador and American vice-president would give orders to this politic and not to one of his political rivals. As a matter of fact, there isn’t any other sense in political infighting in Ukraine. And in this situation even when Merkel asked for permission in Washington and then started to act as a peacekeeper, Minsk protocol wasn’t important enough for Ukrainian authorities. Only what Washington says is important for Ukrainian government. There is an intervening situation now, Washington isn’t saying anything because Tramp hasn’t formulated policies towards Ukraine yet; and current Ukrainian authorities strongly hinder him in this regard, and most likely he will revenge the authorities in a very ingenious way. In one way or another, any development of the negotiations can’t be possible without the USA. It’s the first. The second, any negotiations that will be signed must deal with radical changes in the body of Ukrainian authorities. |
|
Vasily Stoyakin
Kiev Author: Lyubomir Dankov Part 6 | |
Vasily Stoyakin. The war in Donbass. Part 6. | |
|
Any agreement that will be concluded in the future should include significant changes first of all in Ukraine itself, because any assurances that Donbass can receive being a part of Ukraine can’t be reliable without a proper pressure from outside and when the party of war will be as influential as it is now. As long as these people are in power and they can make any decisions, the reunion of Donbass with Ukraine is unthinkable. |
Explicit guarantees of Donbass inviolable status are needed, no matter what status will the region have, it must be inviolable especially in military terms. If it’s needed then no Ukrainian troops should be in the territory. All the agreements will be rather unreliable in terms of their fulfilment in the future without such awareness. |