LAST WEEK’S KEY FACTORS AND MAIN TRENDS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITUATION AROUND UKRAINE
(September 12-18, 2016)
I. Major-Profile Events in the Development of the Situation around Ukraine
Last week’s most important event in the development of the situation around our State was the meeting of the President of Ukraine P. Poroshenko and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine P. Klimkin with the Foreign Ministers of Germany and France F. Steinmeier and J. Ayrault and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and Commonwealth Affairs of the United Kingdom B. Johnson.
In fact, these meetings were a continuation of the next round of negotiations on the settlement of the situation around Ukraine, which was launched within the framework of separate talks of the leaders of the United States, Germany, France and the UK with Russian President V. Putin on the sidelines of the G20 summit in China (as it is known, V. Putin was trying to organize a meeting of leaders of the “Normandy Group” in the “Troika” (”Three”) format — without Ukraine, but his initiative was rejected by the Federal Republic of Germany and France).
The main topics of the talks of the President of Ukraine with representatives of Germany and France were the prospects for the resumption of the “Normandy Format” negotiation, coordination of measures to put pressure on Russia to make it fulfill its security part of the Minsk Agreements, as well as releasing Ukrainian hostages and political prisoners. Besides, during the meeting of Foreign Ministers of Germany and France, in more detail were discussed questions of the withdrawal of troops from the line dividing the parties. According to preliminary plans, an agreement on the matter should be signed during the meeting of the Tripartite Contact Group September 20, 2016, in Minsk.
During his visit to Ukraine, F. Steinmeier, as the OSCE Chairman, and Foreign Minister of France Jean Ayrault visited the Donbas (Kramatorsk, where the command of the ATO is located). The visit was aimed at seeing the situation on the spot and the conditions of work of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission.
At the same time, the very context of the preparation of meetings in Kyiv, as well as the content of the German and French Foreign Ministers press conferences allow to make the assumption that the main goal of their visit to Ukraine was putting pressure on Ukraine in order to force our State to resolve the conflict in the Donbas actually according to the Russian scenario.
In particular, in an interview to the media on September 13, 2016, on the eve of his visit to Kyiv, F. Steinmeier made it clear that he would seek from Kyiv concessions and compromises in the Minsk negotiation process. On the same day, Russian Foreign Minister S. Lavrov initiated the developed by Moscow “parallel road map” for implementation of the Minsk Agreements, providing for every step in the strengthening of the security regime to be followed by a step in the promotion of political reform in the territory of the Donbas.
In fact, the plan was announced by Foreign Minister of France Jean Herault after the talks in Kyiv. In his words: dividing troops in three locations on the line of contact should be the first step, which is already being implemented; at the second stage, immediately after the disengagement, Kyiv must adopt a law on the special status of the occupied territories of the Donbas, which supposedly will pave the way for the withdrawal of heavy weapons and allow access of OSCE observers into the breakaway republics; the third step should be adoption by the Verkhovna Rada of the law on local elections in the Donbas. At this, the plan does not mention withdrawal of Russian troops and arms from the occupied territories in the East of Ukraine, restoring Ukraine’s control over the eastern section of the state border, the problem of Russia’s occupation and annexation of the Ukrainian Crimea.
The plan (which among the Ukrainian experts has already got an apt name “Herault–Medvedchuk’s plan”, by analogy with the “Medvedev–Sarkozy’s plan,” which in 2008 Europe imposed by force on Georgia, under pressure from Moscow) is fully consistent with V. Putin’s plans and intentions to “freeze” the conflict in the Donbas within the framework of formal return of the “DPR” and “LPR” into Ukraine, while maintaining de facto Russia’s control over them. Taking into consideration all this, the experts see it as Germany and France’s banal selling out Ukraine’s interests to the Russian Federation. It is believed that the reasons for this may be both, Europe’s “fatigue syndrome” from the “Ukrainian issue” and Paris and Berlin’s desire at whatever the cost to have solved it before the parliamentary and presidential elections in their countries, as well as Germany and France’s purely real fear before Russia’s military power, which was demonstrated during SCPE “Caucasus-2016”.
What will happen next — will be shown by the Ukrainian President’s meetings with US President B. Obama, and the main candidates for the presidency in the current election campaign — H. Clinton and D. Trump, which are scheduled for September 18-21, 2016, within the framework of the 71st Session of the UN General Assembly in New York.
II. Russia’s Armed Aggression against Ukraine
2.1. The East of Ukraine (The ATO Zone)
Russia’s political steps to make our State fulfill Russian terms of the “settlement” of the conflict in the Donbas are accompanied by Moscow’s actions to manipulate the situation in the conflict zone in the East of Ukraine. Thus, after the truce declared on September 1, 2016, when the intensity of the fighting had been temporarily reduced, Moscow once again intensified the armed conflict in the region before Germany, France and UK’s Foreign Ministers’ visits to Kyiv.
Then — against the background of the talks in Kyiv, Russia announced another truce on September 15, 2016. A number of independent experts are drawing attention exactly to this, as the possible existence of certain agreements between the Federal Republic of Germany, France and Russia, as well as the presence of Russian troops in the occupied territories of Ukraine and the illegal armed groups in the Donbas being fully controlled by the Russian Federation.
2.2. The Crimean Peninsula
Along with the pressure on Ukraine, Western countries and international organizations by manipulating the security policy of the situation in the Donbas, the Russian leadership also continued resonant steps to demonstrate the Crimea’s “belonging to Russia”.
In particular, September 15, 2016, President V. Putin held in Kerch a visiting session of the Presidium of the State Council of Russia on “…the development of the transport system of the South of the Russian Federation” (mainly — on the construction of a bridge across the Kerch Strait, which is now almost completely stopped due to financial problems of the Russian Federation as well as the introduction of additional US sanctions against Russian companies involved in the project).
At the same time, V. Putin’s visit to the Crimea had a pre-election character. Despite Ukraine’s objections and the West’s condemnation, September 18, 2016, in the occupied Ukrainian Crimea, the elections were held to the State Duma of the Russian Federation. In this way Putin’s regime has actually defied Ukraine, the United States and the European Union.
2.3. Other Aspects of the Russian Federation’s Actions against Ukraine and the West
September 10, 2016, Russia completed a complex large-scale military actions grouped within the framework of SCPE “Caucasus-2016”, which was conducted in the Southern Military District (MD) of the RF Armed Forces, with the participation of units and formations of the Western and Central MD, as well as the Strategic Missile Forces (RVSN), Airborne Forces (VDV), Aerospace Forces (VKS) and the formations of the Black Sea, Northern and Baltic Fleets.
Analysis of these events leads to the conclusion about Moscow’s working out a scenario of a full-scale war with the US/NATO and Ukraine on the South-Western strategic direction of the Russian Federation, including with use of nuclear weapons. Within the framework of this scenario, two possible reasons for this war have been considered, namely:
first — Russia’s large-scale operation to create a land corridor to the Crimea and Trans-Dniester, and under favorable circumstances — capturing the entire south-eastern Ukraine;
second — Russia’s response to “…Ukraine’s actions, with the US and NATO’s support, to forcefully regain control over the Crimea and in response to Ukraine’s terrorist activity in the Crimea”.
Against this background, tasks were worked out to protect critical facilities, as well as to prevent destabilization of the situation in the interior regions of the Russian Federation as a result of the enemy’s special operations, and because of the emergence of social unrest because of the sharpening economic problems in the country.
first — inspection of the readiness of federal executive bodies and enterprises of the military-industrial complex to act in wartime; conducting mobilization and deployment of troops of territorial defense. All in all more than 7,000 reservists from different regions of Russia were recalled. It was on their basis that units of territorial defense were formed. Besides, separately were tested mobilization plans and resource stocks at Russian industrial enterprises;
second — creation of the RF Armed Forces grouping near the borders of Ukraine and in the North Caucasus of Russia. It consists of formations and units of the 49th and 58th Combined Arms Armies of the Southern MD, as well as of the 1st Tank and 20th Combined Arms Army of the Western MD, 2nd Combined Arms Army of the Central MD, formations and units of the Airborne and Special Task Forces, as well as of the front and army aviation, which were redeployed to the South of the Russian Federation. In addition, they deployed and prepared for combat use the Strike and Amphibious Forces of the Black Sea Fleet, reinforced by the ships from the Northern and Baltic Fleets of the RF Armed Forces, and the ships’ striking groups of the Caspian Flotilla of the RF Armed Forces.
All in all, these groups, according to different sources, included up to 120 thousand people, among them — up to 100 thousand people were immediately deployed: in the occupied Ukrainian territory — about 58 thousand people /including in the Crimea — up to 23 thousand; in the occupied territory of the Donbas — about 35 thousand/, on the border with Ukraine — more than 42 thousand people.
At the same stage, measures were taken to cover up the rapid deployment of its troops (forces), and disruption of the deployment of enemy forces by applying air strikes by the long-range (strategic) bomber, strike front and army aviation of the VKS of the RF Armed Forces on the territories of Ukraine and its allies, as well as to block the Black Sea and the Baltic straits;
third — conducting offensive/defensive operations: in the first case — within the framework of an offensive in Ukraine, in the second — as part of “defending the Crimea”. At this, in the second case, the key point of the SCPE “Caucasus-2016” (with the direct presence of Defense Minister S. Shoigu) was holding bilateral tactical exercises at brigade level on the Opuk Cape in the Crimea with mastering the tasks of landing and rejecting the sea and air assault forces with further development of an offensive/counter-offensive action;
fourth — deployment of the activities of the RF Armed Forces and its allies in the strategic depth of the enemy territory on the southern flank of NATO — in the Balkans. Testing of this stage is planned in the course of the “Slavonic Brotherhood-2016” joint exercises of Russian, Belarusian and Serbian Armed Forces and the “BARS-2016” Russian-Serbian exercise in Serbia at the turn of September and October of this year;
fifth — application of nuclear missile strikes against targets in the enemy’s critical infrastructure — in order to keep the strategic initiative in the war with the USA/NATO and to force the enemy to surrender on terms favorable for Russia. In particular, in the final stage of the Strategic Missile Forces SCPT on September 9,2016 from the “Plesetsk” cosmodrome they conducted a real successful launch of a “Topol” ICBM in the direction of a polygon in Kamchatka.
III. Ukraine, International Organizations and Leading Western Countries
Despite the attempts to achieve a compromise with Russia, including at the expense of Ukraine’s interests, the European Union continues its consistent policy of sanctions against the Russian Federation. In particular, September 15 the European Commission made a formal decision to extend until March 2017 the individual sanctions against Russian individuals and legal persons involved in the armed aggression against Ukraine.
However, the situation in the EU is rather complicated, which undermines the unity of the European Union, on the “Ukrainian issue” included. At the same time, a significant problem for Ukraine is the aggravation of the pre-election campaign in the United States, that distracts Washington’s attention from problems around Ukraine.
3.1. International Organizations
The European Union. September 16, 2016, Bratislava hosted the European Union’s informal summit — for the first time without the UK. They discussed the issues of economic development of the EU, as well as strengthening security of the Organization in the context of increased levels of threats from the Russian Federation and the “immigration crisis” in Europe. As a result of the meeting, a plan of action was adopted to address these problems. In particular, it is planned to expand the European Fund for Strategic Investments, to help the EU countries in the struggle against unemployment, to introduce a more stringent protection regime of the European Union’s borders, as well as to deepen cooperation between the member countries of the Organization in the security and defense spheres. Besides, the summit confirmed all the EU sanctions against Russia, which will be in effect until March 15, 2017.
On the eve of the summit, September 14, 2016, these issues had been raised in European Commission President Jacques Juncker’s annual speech before the European Parliament. Along with the statement of economic problems and issues in the sphere of the EU’s security, he drew attention to the spread of “existential” crisis in the European Union — namely providing a number of members with advantages of their own interests of the general European values. In order to strengthen the EU’s security, J. Juncker proposed to create the EU’s joint Armed Forces, which should focus on the protection of Europe in coordination with NATO.
An example of the situation in the EU getting more complicated is the spread of Euroskeptic and separatist sentiments in some countries of the Organization. In particular, on September 11, 2016, in Barcelona and other cities of the Catalonia autonomous commune there were mass rallies under the slogan of separating their region from Spain. According to official data, 540 thousand people participated in the events supported by the head of the province K. Puchdemont. In 2014, the Government of Catalonia organized an informal survey which resulted in 80 % of citizens’ supporting independence of the province. However, the Spanish authorities have banned a referendum on this issue.
Besides, a significant problem for the EU is an influx of refugees, leading to deepening differences between European countries and undermining the unity of the European Union. In particular, September 12, 2016, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Luxembourg J. Asselborn, made a public criticism of Hungary and personally the head of the Hungarian government V. Orban for the policy on refugees. According to J. Asselborn, such a policy discredits the European Union to the world. With this in mind, he urged to exclude Hungary from the Organization.
These trends are actively supported and used by Russia for its own purposes to further weaken and split the EU.
3.2. Leading Western Countries
The USA. With the approach of the date (November 8, 2016) of the US presidential election, which will be crucial for Ukraine in terms of the possibility of coming to power of the sustainable Russia’s enemy H. Clinton or pro-Russian candidate D. Trump, the pre-election situation in the United States of America acquires further aggravation.
Thus, H. Clinton’s temporary breakout due to the state of her health has been fully exploited by its political opponents, both within the United States, represented by D. Trump and by external forces, especially by the Russian Federation. On the topic of H. Clinton’s disease there was launched a large-scale information campaign to undermine her campaign positions. The result was a drop in H. Clinton’s rating (41 %), which is almost on par with that of D. Trump (40 %).
In turn, the US law enforcement agencies, with the support of political forces committed to H. Clinton, started an investigation of the so-called D. Trump’s Organization (Fund). As a result, there have been found fairly stable connections of the said structure with foreign politicians and even criminal entities.
IV. Other Important Trends and Developments Concerning Ukraine’s National Interests
Resolving the “Ukrainian issue” as the main prerequisite of lifting the West’s sanctions against Russia (of course, on Russian terms), is of particular importance for the Putin regime in the situation of further deterioration of the Russian economy.
Thus, according to the forecast of the Russian Analytical Credit Rating Agency (ACRA, created in the Russian Federation as an alternative to Standard&Poor’s, Moody’s and Fitch international rating agencies), the recession of the Russian economy, as a minimum, will last until 2017. At the same time in 2016 the fall in Russia’s GDP is expected to reach 1.5 %, while the decline in real incomes of the population — by 10 %.
These processes influence Russia’s closest allies’ attitude to it. Despite the strategic partnership between Russia and Belarus, the Belarusian party is distancing itself from Moscow’s anti-Western policy and demonstrates a willingness to concessions to the USA and the EU in the issues of democratization of the political system. Thus, according to the results of the parliamentary elections in Belarus of September 11, 2016, (actually controlled by the authorities of the country) for the first time since the mid 90s, two opposition politicians were allowed to the House of Representatives of the National Assembly (Anna Konopatska from the United Civil Party and Elena Anisis from the Union of the Belarusian Language).
At the same time, the elections in Belarus caused ambiguous estimates in the USA and the EU. For example, the US State Department welcomed the peaceful nature of the vote in Belarus, and pointed out a positive change in the electoral process in the country and the passage of the opposition candidates into the Belarusian parliament. At the same time, they pointed out that in general the elections were not up to democratic norms. A similar conclusion was drawn by the European Union, which has urged Belarus to continue reforming the country’s electoral system.
V. Main Trends in the Development of the Situation around Ukraine in the Future
5.1. Key Events and Trends that Will Be Most Important for Ukraine
In the short term, the defining indicator of the USA and the EU’s real attitude to Russia’s armed aggression against Ukraine will be the assessment by Western countries (and international organizations) of the results of the parliamentary elections in the Russian Federation (September 18, 2016). In this regard, the main divisive issue is the Putin regime’s holding elections to the State Duma in the occupied Crimea that is absolutely illegal from the point of view of Ukraine and its Western allies who demonstrate a categorical rejection of the legitimacy of Russia’s annexation of the Crimea.
Thus, the non-recognition of the parliamentary elections in Russia by the USA and the European Union will clearly and unambiguously confirm the solidity of their positions in terms of supporting Ukraine and exerting pressure on the Russian Federation. Otherwise, the West would show double standards in its attitude to our country and to V. Putin’s regime as well as the being unable to really stand up to Moscow. This would actually legalize Russia’s annexation of the Ukrainian Crimea.
All this puts the USA and the EU in a fairly difficult position. On the one hand, they are actually facing the prospect of further deterioration of relations with Russia to a critical level, and on the other — they could lose their credibility as true world-class powerful forces. Considering the above-mentioned, we should expect Washington and Brussels’ certain “compromise” step. In particular, they will loudly condemn the Russian elections in the Crimea and will not recognize their results (this has already been stated by the US State Department). At the same time, general elections to the State Duma in the Russian Federation will be de facto recognized by “tacit consent”.
However, in any case, Russia’s parliamentary elections in the Crimea allow the Putin regime’s opponents at any time to call into question the legitimacy of the State Duma of the Russian Federation and of all its decisions. So, Ukraine and its partners will receive an adequate mechanism to respond to Russia’s statement about the “illegality” of the Ukrainian authorities.
5.2. Prospects for the Development of Events in the Conflict Zones in Ukraine
For some time, Russia can and will maintain a truce in the Donbas, at least by reducing the number of attacks on the positions of Ukrainian troops and civilian settlements. In future all this will depend on Ukraine’s reaction to Moscow’s above-mentioned plan for the “settlement” of the conflict in the East of our country.
Thus, if Ukraine agrees to the Russian Federation’s demands, the fighting will be mostly discontinued, and the conflict will be “frozen” under the terms and in favor of Moscow. In case of Ukraine’s uncompromising position to defend its national interests — Russia will again activate the armed conflict in the Donbas to the highest possible level. At this Moscow can resort to local and large-scale offensive operations.
At the same time, with the aim of increasing pressure on Ukraine and Western countries, Russia will start the next “unannounced inspections” of the RF Armed Forces and some exercises on the Ukrainian and European directions, and will intensify provocations in the Black Sea and Baltic regions.
5.3. Other Important Events that Will Have an Impact on Ukraine’s Interests and Security
October 30, 2016, Moldova will held its first since 1996 direct presidential elections (until now held by the Parliament). Voting results will be crucial in terms of both external and internal policy of Moldova, as well as its relations with Ukraine.
To date, eight candidates have been nominated for the post of the head of the Moldovan state, namely: D. Chubashenko — the candidate from Our Party; A. Nestase — from the “Dignity and Truth” Party; M. Ghimpu — from the Liberal Party; M. Sandu — from the “Action and Solidarity” party; Yu. Lyanke — from the European People’s Party of Moldova; I. Dodon — from the Socialist Party of the Republic of Moldova; N. Korzh — an independent candidate; M. Lupu — the candidate from the Democratic Party of Moldova.
At least three of them — D. Chubashenko, M. Ghimpu and I. Dodon are directly supported by the Russian Federation, which is trying to influence Moldova’s policy today and in the future.