Foreign Policy

Getting out of Minsk dead lock: two scenarios for Ukraine

11.05.2016
img1
Vasyl Filipchuk
Senior Advisor

The Normandy group meeting starts today in Berlin, though anyone hardly expects any results. Work on resolving the conflict in Donbas and restoring Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty is replaced by ritual appeals, statements about deep concern and requirements for compliance with the Minsk agreements. Is there any way out of Minsk deadlock?

Last year it became clear that resolving of the conflict is disadvantageous  for Ukraine. After the Normandy group meeting in June, Ukraine was required to intensify political dialogue between Ukraine and certain districts of Donetsk and Lugansk regions (CDDLR). The original text  is the following – "la nécessité d'un dialogue politique entre l'ukraine et les représentants des zones de certaines régions de Donetsk et de Lougansk".  According to diplomatic glossary, this "language" can be assessed by a “F” grade, since the words "Ukraine and CDDLR" confirm the individual subjectivity of CDDLR with status which is equal to Ukraine’s one, and define Ukraine and CDDLR as parties to the conflict. That is wrong because the parties to the conflict are at least Ukraine and Russia (in fact, this issue is not only about Ukraine and Russia). The equal status of CDDLR means humiliation for Ukraine and glorification of those whom Kyiv calls “terrorists”. Even Moldova never mentions "Moldova and Transnistria", and always "Banks of the Dnister" or "Chisinau and Tiraspol". Likewise in case of any other conflicts with separatists, if a state, which is struggling with separatism, respects itself and considers occupied territories as its own.

With regard to a Facebook publication, one of the diplomats drew my attention to the fact that such a text not occasionally appeared and remains on the website of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It not just reflects the "language" of the Minsk agreements but uses provisions stipulated in the UN Security Council Resolution No. 2202 dated February 17, 2015. The UN Security Council resolutions prevail in international relations if we are talking about conflict resolution. That is why the international community is waiting for "the outcome of the dialogue" with CDDLR on status of the region", format and modality of conducting elections in "DPR/LPR", amnesty to those whom official Kyiv calls terrorists. What measures should international observers take?


The following day after the above UN Security Council resolution had been adopted, NSDC of Ukraine decided to appeal to the UN with a request to deploy peacekeeping forces. No results in this dimension have been achieved after a year and two months. That is not surprising, because “zero option” basis for resolution is prescribed in the text of the Minsk agreements, and there is no provision on peacekeepers, only on assistance of the OSCE. Perhaps, that is why on April 24 2016, the President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko announced the preparation of the OSCE police mission in Donbas. According to the President, this mission should "provide sustainable ceasefire and security, withdrawal of the heavy military equipment and withdrawal of the Russian occupation forces, regaining control over the Ukrainian-Russian part of the border". According to the President’s website, he is convinced that "the police mission of the OSCE should set permanent military posts in the places of withdrawal of heavy equipment and in the occupied part of the Ukrainian-Russian border to stop providing the Russian armed insurgents with equipment and ammunition".


To what extent do such expectations meet the police mandate of OSCE missions? The authority of the OSCE police mission includes support and training of local law enforcement agencies in transnational and organized crime, drug trafficking, human trafficking, human rights violations and other challenges. These missions are considered as measures of preventive diplomacy and post-conflict peacebuilding. In other words, police missions are usually deployed either prior or in process of completing a conflict.

 

The OSCE police mission or any other organization is not able to disengage the parties and punish the troublemakers. It is not its function. Further, such a mission could not provide sustainable ceasefire and security, withdrawal of heavy military equipment and withdrawal of Russian troops.
On the other hand, presence of the OSCE police mission can contribute to monitoring of the situation during the elections on the DPR and LPR-occupied territories, but it is unlikely to contribute to either reconciling the parties or ensuring restoration of Ukraine’s sovereignty without achieving fundamental political agreement and complete cessation of hostilities and violence in the region.


What plan do we have for resolving the conflict if the UN peacekeepers are not deployed to disengage the conflicting parties?


The Minsk agreements neither meet expectations of the actual parties to the conflict nor solve its causes, but transfer the geopolitical and bilateral Ukrainian-Russian conflict towards Ukraine’s internal policy. There are two possible scenarios of future developments. In the first case, Ukraine’s internal strengthening as a result of the effective reforms implementation will contribute to strengthening of its subjectivity and empowering its influence in the international arena. At least a partial overcoming of internal security risks will enhance Ukraine's position in the negotiation process regarding the conflict resolution and raise an issue either on systematic resolution of the conflict with Russia, or on transition of the conflict from the internally Ukrainian to the Ukrainian-Russian, as well as de jure recognition of Russia as an aggressor. For Ukraine the implementation of this scenario will mean victory in the hybrid war over superior forces of the enemy. For the international community it will mean positive experience of overcoming the latest hybrid security challenges.


According to another scenario, further internal weakening of Ukraine, caused by lack of reforms, corruption and impunity can lead to new internal conflicts and further disintegration of the country. This will enable Russia to describe Ukraine as a failed state, promote hybrid vehicles for the next intensification of the conflict, and simultaneously spread the idea of enforcing peace to Ukraine. For Ukraine the implementation of such a scenario would mean defeat in a hybrid war. For the international community it will lead to maintaining of the current inefficient system of global and European security to further deepening of confrontation and emergence of new conflicts.


If Ukraine does not implement internal reforms and the qualified diplomatic activity,  it will not be able in the medium term to convince the international community to initial a peace enforcement operation against Russia to peace. Moreover, it risks to become a target for such an operation.

 

Publications with tag «Foreign Policy»
Foreign Policy

ICPS experts researched the question of building a policy towards China in Central and Eastern Europe

ICPS has prepared an analytical study focused on the evolution of China's regional policy in Central and Eastern Europe, as well as recommendations for developing policies towards China in the region. The "One Belt, One Road" initiative has become a key tool for promoting China's geopolitical interests and implementing its grand strategy aimed at changing the existing international order. This global initiative encompasses transportation, logistics, trade, and investment projects, promoting China's transition to a new level of influence and responsibility. Europe plays an important role in this. The European market is a natural "center of gravity" for China's export-oriented economy; Beijing seeks to build strong cooperation with Europe based on active trade and interdependence. China, in its turn, is also an important trading and economic partner for Europe. Central and Eastern European countries (CEE) have in some sense become "gateway" to Europe for China. Seeking to deepen relations with them and involve in its own infrastructure projects, China has developed and implemented a regional policy within the framework of the "14+1" initiative (previously "16+1" and "17+1"), as well as on a bilateral level. This Chinese activity has elicited ambiguous reactions both among participating states and among other EU members. Russia's invasion of Ukraine has brought new problems to the agenda and significantly weakened China's position in Europe, particularly in the CEE. Political and security issues have taken priority over trade and infrastructure. The ongoing war has forced both China and countries of the region to adjust their perceptions and policies towards each other. The most vivid trends and problematic issues are examined in the paper utilizing the experience of Poland, Romania, Lithuania, and Latvia. Taking also into account Ukraine's experience in building relations with China, recommendations are provided for the main elements of CEE's policies towards China. More information can be found at the following link: https://icps.com.ua/en/our-projects/publications/building-a-policy-towards-china-in-central-and-eastern-europe/

30.03.2023
Foreign Policy

What are the main problems of reconstruction plans for Ukraine and what are the ways to solve them: experts provided recommendations

International Centre for Policy Studies has presented the document "REBUILDING UKRAINE: INITIATIVES, APPROACHES, RECOMMENDATIONS", which analyzed different aspects of the future reconstruction process for Ukraine. According to various estimates Ukraine's total losses resulting from Russian aggression at the end of 2022 constituted around 700 billion US dollars. This amount has been increasing every day of Russian attacks and bombardments targeting civilian infrastructure and killing innocent people. The international community recognizes the need to finance reconstruction of Ukraine. There have been many international conferences, expert studies and discussions on that. However, there is currently no consensus on sources or tools for Ukraine's rebuilding projects, no agreed overall concept of how the process will be conducted and implemented. Meanwhile, needs of Ukraine for reconstruction are urgent and vital to keep country viable and able to withstand Russian continuing aggression. This necessitates an in-depth study of the issue as well as public and expert discussions to suggest appropriate decisions. In this paper the International Center of Policy Studies examines existing international experience of post-war reconstruction with a special attention to good examples, which can be used by Ukraine. Existing initiatives regarding the reconstruction of Ukraine are analyzed with a focus on new ideas and recommendations, which can be used in this process. The study intends to contribute to current expert discussions in Ukraine and among our partners on reconstruction of the country during and after the war. You can read/download the ICPS publication "REBUILDING UKRAINE: INITIATIVES, APPROACHES, RECOMMENDATIONS " by following the link: https://icps.com.ua/en/our-projects/publications/rebuilding-ukraine-initiatives-approaches-recommendations/  

10.02.2023
Foreign Policy

How to make sanctions more effective: ICPS analysts offered new ideas

International Centre for Policy Studies has presented the document "How to make anti-Russian sanctions more effective", which analyzed the gaps in the sanctions policy. It is noted that the international community has adopted seven packages of sanctions against Russia since its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Over 50 countries have in some form joined the sanctions regime. Some states, such as Israel and China, don't adopt sanctions but block potential ways for Russia to evade their effect. Mainly, it is the developing countries that don't implement the sanctions regime, while the collective West is decisive and united in its exploit of the tool. Akin to 2014 and after, sanctions constitute a complex mechanism of selective action. They are not absolute but rather operate in different sectors and against particular individuals or legal entities. In addition to sectoral sanctions, diplomatic and visa restrictions are in place. At the same time, to make the sanctions more effective, the international community should fill the gaps that allow for a selective designation of Russian oligarchs and politicians. It requires a systemic analysis and monitoring aimed at finding these gaps, then sanctioning the individuals who had avoided personal sanctions.  Accordingly, this document contains not only an analysis of the sanctions policy, but also recommendations for minimizing its gaps. You can read/download the ICPS publication "How to make anti-Russian sanctions more effective" by following the link: https://icps.com.ua/en/our-projects/publications/how-to-make-anti-russian-sanctions-more-effective/  

30.09.2022
Foreign Policy

Austrian experts and diplomats discussed ICPS study “Sanctions against Russia”

Sanctions must remain a key instrument of pressure on Russia to restore Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. This conclusion was reached by Ukrainian and Austrian foreign policy experts during expert discussion of the ICPS study “Sanctions against Russia: current state, prospects, successes and gaps of the multilateral international sanctions regime against Russian Federation”, which took place on Tuesday, June 3, in the format of online discussion. About 40 Austrian and Ukrainian diplomats, analysts and foreign policy experts took part in online discussion “Sanctions against Russia: are they still effective?”, organized by ICPS in conjunction with the International Institute for Peace (IIP, Vienna) with the support of the International Renaissance Foundation. The speakers were Hannes Swoboda, President of the International Institute for Peace (IIP), Peter Havlik, expert at the Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, Anastasia Galushka, ICPS expert in international law and human rights and Mykola Kapitonenko, ICPS associate expert. The participants of discussion stressed the need to continue sanctions against Russia, as Russia's actions in Ukraine are a challenge not only for our country, but for the entire international community which is why they must receive a joint coordinated response. “Sanctions, as a tool “between wars and words”, remain the only way to put pressure on Russia's foreign policy while limiting its destructive potential for international security,” ICPS expert in international law and human rights Anastasia Galushka said. According to Mykola Kapitonenko, combination of different types of sanctions will allow for a more systemic impact on Russian policy; while the procedure of their periodic extension will signal the dependence of sanctions pressure on specific changes in the behavior of the Russian Federation. It should be noted that earlier ICPS experts presented the study “Sanctions against Russia” in the United States, Estonia, Belgium, Italy and Poland. You could download and read ICPS study “Sanctions against Russia” via the link: https://cutt.ly/orQ0PGd

04.06.2020
Foreign Policy

ICPS conducted a video conference on bilateral relations between Ukraine and Hungary

On Thursday, May 28, the International Centre for Policy Studies (ICPS) and the Institute for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Hungary) initiated an expert video conference on “Impact of Bilateral Relations between Ukraine and Hungary on Regional Security”. The online event was part of the project “Ukraine-Hungary: Towards Understanding” with the support of the Institute for Foreign Affairs and Trade. During the video conference, the participants discussed the state and prospects of relations between Ukraine and Hungary in the context of regional security, Hungary's role in Ukraine-NATO relations, the impact of the Russian conflict on Ukrainian-Hungarian relations and regional security. The event was attended by several dozen experts, including Christina Murphy, Deputy Head of Mission, Hungarian Embassy in Ukraine, Georgy Ilyash, research fellow at the Institute for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Hungary), Mykola Kapitonenko, ICPS Expert on Foreign Policy, Dmytro Tuzhansky, political scientist, expert on Ukrainian-Hungarian relations, Anastasia Galushka, ICPS expert on foreign policy and international law. “Relations between Hungary and Ukraine still remain in a well-known deadlock,” Mykola Kapitonenko said. - Minor shifts in recent months, firstly, do not fully meet the expectations that arose after the victory of Volodymyr Zelensky in the presidential election, and, secondly, according to Budapest, do not solve the key problem of narrowing the rights Hungarians in Ukraine”. According to him, the rapid development of events in the region pushes our countries to cooperation. Against the backdrop of the coronavirus pandemic, a bilateral agreement on health cooperation was signed, a corridor was set up in Hungary for Ukrainians to return home, and new formats of governmental remote communication were tested. “The usual agenda, dominated by the Russian threat, retaliation by NATO and the lack of democracy, is giving way to the challenges of pandemic,” Mykola Kapitonenko said. - In addition to those directly related to human health, these are problems that have already been or will be caused by the economic recession and the growing demand for security among citizens. Together, they change the way states communicate and perceive each other. Borders and various barriers are being partially restored, selfishness is growing, and political decisions are returning to the usual national level.” Anastasia Galushka drew attention to the controversial law on education which provoked numerous discussions at the political and professional levels. “It can hardly be argued that citizens living in Ukraine should know the state language of the country, and that this law can only be seen as an advantage for members of national minorities,” ICPS expert said. “However, implement the law in practice was much harder than expected.” According to her, the Venice Commission also addressed this issue and formulated some principles, stating that knowledge of the official language of the state is a factor of social cohesion and integration, and it is legitimate for states to promote their language and call for the state language to be the language of education for all. “Ukraine and Hungary are part of a single region, establishing cooperation and maintaining a common consensus could significantly expand the capabilities of both countries,” Anastasia Galushka added. - This would control the level of escalation of the conflict. The regional context can open new horizons for both states, take them out of the circular discussion and focus only on current problems. A full-fledged strategic partnership is still a long way off, but at least the current crisis can be overcome.” 

29.05.2020