The key event of the Ukrainian heading the OSCE in terms of determination of the ways of solving the Trans-Dniester conflict, was the visit of Foreign Minister of Ukraine — the current Head of OSCE — Mr. Kozhara to Chisinau and Tiraspol in January this year. This visit allows to sum up the first results of Ukraine’s activity in one of the key positions in European collective security that is crucial for our country.
Unfortunately, as predicted by “Borysfen” in earlier publications, despite the quite positive and pragmatic position of Ukraine in resolving the Trans-Dniester conflict, Ukraine faced a number of major obstacles in the implementation of its plans, first of all an outright counteraction to all peace efforts of our State on the side of the Russian Federation and its satellite regime in the self-proclaimed Trans-Dniester Moldavian Republic (TMR).
A manifestation of this was the massive and deliberate campaign to discredit the Ukrainian presidency in OSCE, organized by the Russian leaders and the governors of the TMR. In particular, evidences of this were declarations of so-called “president” of Trans-Dniester Moldovan Republic Y. Shevchuk and the “Foreign Minister” of TMR N. Shtanski, refuting the statement of Foreign Minister of Ukraine about willingness of Trans-Dniester to discuss a political settlement of the situation around the TMR.
These statements were widely spread by Russian media, which provided them with appropriate comments about the “incompetence of the leadership of Ukraine” and its tending to “wishful thinking.” Based on this, there were made blatantly biased conclusions about the “futility of Ukraine’s efforts to settle the Trans-Dniester conflict.”
At the same time, in terms of undermining Ukrainian policy at the Moldovan-Trans-Dniester direction, Russia and TMR are trying to cause a split in the relations between Ukraine and Moldova. In particular, for this purpose in publications of Russian and Trans-Dniester media they speak about “Ukraine’s complete support to Russia’s plans (suggesting federalization of Moldova, which in no way suits Chisinau) and “Ukraine’s intention to establish control over Trans-Dniester “(up to its proper integration into Odesa region) under the cover of programs for regional economic cooperation.
Besides, before the Ukrainian presidency in OSCE – in autumn 2012, the Russian side had made a number of provocative actions (not coordinated with Moldova) ,like re-arming Russian troops in Trans-Dniester, including attempts to use Ukrainian territory and airspace for the purpose. The mentioned above caused Moldova’s extremely negative reaction and created a real risk of significant complications of Ukraine-Moldova relations.
All this shows the determined Russia’s policy aiming at returning Ukraine into the orbit of Russia’s influence. Within the framework of such policy, the Russian Federation is making all possible efforts in order not to let Ukraine’s international positions get stronger, by Ukraine’s heading the OSCE included.
This policy of Russia is confirmed by its attitude to Kazakhstan, which, unlike Ukraine, completely supports Russian positions in the OSCE and Russian integration initiatives. Thus, during Kazakhstan’s presidency in the OSCE in 2011, Russia was not creating obstacles in Kazakhstan’s work, but on the contrary, the RF assisted in the organization of the summit of OSCE in Astana.
Taking into consideration all the mentioned above, we may expect the continuation of Russia’s activity for undermining Ukraine’s efforts for realization of its goals as the head of OSCE. In particular, this may regard to Russia’s creating problems in the course of another round of talks on finding the ways of solving the Trans-Dniester conflict in the “5+2” format, which is going to take place in Lviv in February 2013. In this aspect Russia and leaders of TMR will try not to allow any real improvements of the situation around TMR under the leadership of Ukraine. At the moment both, Russia and TMR are demonstrating their intentions, openly declaring their reluctance to discuss the status of the self-declared republic, which is of principle importance in solving the conflict.
Apart from this, Russia will create obstacles on the way of Ukraine’s other initiatives on regulation of “frozen” conflicts at the post-Soviet territories, the one around Nagorny Karabakh included. Thus, in accordance with an old Russian tradition, on the eve of Ukraine’s Foreign Minister’s (as the head of the OSCE) visit to the region, another scandal can be organized by Russia with accusations of our country in “illegal delivery of weapons” to Armenia or Azerbaijan. At the same time, to give the scandal more resonance, armed incidents may be organized on the contact line of the sides of the conflict.
And of course, during and after the visit, Russia will be carrying out a special information campaign about “another fiasco of peace-keeping efforts of Ukraine” and “ineffectiveness of the actions of Ukraine as the Head of the OSCE”. Such-like statements will be confirmed by statements of leaders of Nagorny Karabakh and, possibly, Armenia, about “inevitability of gaining independence by the self-declared republic” and “non-existence of any prospects of its reintegration into Azerbaijan”.
In view of the said above, Ukraine can’t hope for constructive cooperation with Russia, which is one of the co-heads of the Minsk Group of the OSCE on regulation of the conflict around Nagorny Karabakh.
Despite all the mentioned above, Ukraine’s presidency in the OSCE is strategically important for Ukraine from the point of view of strengthening its international positions and helping the process of our country’s European integration. Keeping this in mind, “Borysfen” is starting a wide discussion about the following questions:
- the role and place of Ukraine, as the Head of the OSCE, in carrying out the main tasks of the Organization;
- ways to achieve the main goals of the Ukraine’s presidency in OSCE regarding solving the “frozen” conflicts in the post- Soviet territories;
- problems of Ukraine’s presidency in the OSCE, especially in terms of its relations with Russia in the sphere of European security;
- prospects of the development of the situation in areas of “frozen” conflicts in the former Soviet Union, and other countries and international organizations’ influence on them.
