LAST WEEK’S KEY FACTORS AND MAIN TRENDS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITUATION AROUND UKRAINE
(September 26-October 02, 2016)
I. Major-Profile Events in the Development of the Situation around Ukraine
Last week, one of the most important factors of influence on Ukraine’s interests was another aggravation of relations between the USA and leading EU countries and Russia, but now on the Syrian issue. The cause of this was a violation of the truce in Syria after the Assad regime and Russia’s VKS warplanes applied a missile and bomb attack on the humanitarian convoy near Aleppo (which is under the control of opposition forces) on 19 September, then the massive bombardment of the city and the Syrian government forces’ offensive on it. At this, B. Assad’s regime, with covert support from Russia, is using the weapons prohibited by international agreements, including cluster and incendiary phosphorous bombs and chemical warfare agents.
This issue was discussed at an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council of 25 September 2016. In connection with the preservation of the veto from Russia, no concrete decision was taken. At the same time, the United States, France and the United Kingdom in a joint statement accused Moscow of aiding B. al-Assad’s regime, and called Russia’s actions in Syria “barbarism, rather than the fight against terrorism”. Certain statements were made by each leading Western country, including those whom Moscow considers its potential allies.
Thus, according to statements by the US State Department, the shelling of the humanitarian convoy, as well as Russia’s support for the Assad regime’s military operation in Aleppo, absolutely contradict Moscow’s statements about the “commitment to a diplomatic resolution of the situation in Syria”. Considering the above-mentioned, the United States has not ruled out the possibility of new sanctions against Russia now also on “the Syrian issue”. Along with this, the US State Department has warned Russia of “…the possibility of transfer of the Islamic extremists’ actions from Syria to the Russian Federation”.
In his turn, the representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations M. Rycroft directly accused Russia of “…provoking the conflict and the suffering of the civilian population in Syria”. Even a more assertive position was that of France, which openly recognized Russia’s being involved in war crimes in Aleppo, “…that should not go unpunished”. A similar position with regard to Russia’s actions in Syria was also demonstrated by Italy.
As in the case of Russia’s armed aggression against Ukraine, Russian Permanent Representative to the UN V. Churkin denied Moscow’s involvement in the events in Aleppo. According to the Russian Representative, “…Russia is not going to unilaterally prove anything to anyone”. The most accurate estimate of Russia’s actions in Syria and in Ukraine was given by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Lithuania L. Linkyavichus. According to him, — “…being the aggressor in Ukraine, Russia cannot be a peacemaker elsewhere”.
Besides, international observers point out the arrival in the area of Aleppo of about three thousand Russian mercenaries involved in the fighting on the side of B. Assad’s regime.
All this completely eliminates all of Russia’s efforts to reach a compromise with the USA and the EU on the “Ukrainian issue” as well. September 29, 2016, US President B. Obama and German Chancellor A. Merkel in a telephone conversation gave a joint assessment of Russian actions in Syria — as “a continuation of Moscow’s aggressive policy”.
Russia’s violation of the truce in Syria has confirmed yet again the blatant irresponsibility of V. Putin’s regime, which never fulfills its obligations if they do not meet the Kremlin’s interests.
II. Russia’s Armed Aggression against Ukraine
2.1. The East of Ukraine (the ATO Zone)
Evidence of the above-mentioned approach of Russia’s is the situation in the East of Ukraine. Despite the declared cease-fire, Russian-terrorist troops (forces) continue firing on positions of the ATO forces and civilian settlements, including using heavy weapons systems. As a result of the “truce”, Ukrainian military personnel and civilians in the region are killed actually every day.
Besides, Russia still uses the cease-fire regime for re-manning and regrouping its forces in the East of Ukraine. And to disguise and conceal such actions, the pro-Russian militants block the access of the Special OSCE Monitoring Mission to the front line, especially in those areas where withdrawal of forces of the parties is supposed to take place. The average intensity of attacks is gradually increasing — from 10-15 to 25-40 per day, and more recently it has actually reached the level that had preceded the “truce”.
September 29, 2016, Federal Chancellor of Germany A. Merkel in a telephone conversation with Russian President V. Putin once again called on him “…to stabilize the fragile truce in the Donbas and to do everything possible to improve the catastrophic humanitarian situation in Syria”. No positive reaction from the Russian Federation has followed.
2.2. The Crimean Peninsula
The negative consequences of Russia’s annexation of the Crimea have been recognized even by most odious Russian politicians of national-chauvinist orientation. In particular, according to the well-known singer of the Soviet times, and now — the State Duma deputy from the Trans-Baikal District I. Kobzon (to top all that, a criminal boss), “…the Crimea is a native Russian land, but its financing is a burden for Russia”.
Although, for a military settlement in the Crimea Russia does have money. Thus, the forces of the Border Troops of the FSB are building a real stronghold on the administrative border of the occupied Crimea with the mainland of Ukraine. The activities are carried out within the framework of the RF State Defense order for 2016. The fortified zone is being built near the village of Strelkovoye of Kherson region of Ukraine on the Arabat Bar between the Sivash and the Azov Sea.
Persecution of indigenous people — Crimean Tatars — continues in Russia’s characteristic repressive style typical of the Stalinist Soviet Union of the 1940s. September 29, 2016, on the Day of Remembrance of the victims of Babi Yar (mass execution of the Jewish population of Kiev in 1941) — Russia’s Supreme Court banned the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people. In fact, such actions of Moscow were the last step in the establishment of a totalitarian regime in the Crimea.
2.3. Other Aspects of the Russian Federation’s Action against Ukraine and the West
After the “Caucasus-2016” SCPE, Russia continues to build its groups of forces on the operations directions with NATO countries and Russia’s western neighbors.
For example, in response to Finland’s statement about the possibility of joining NATO (after V. Putin’s regime’s military aggression against Ukraine), Russia has launched two S-400 anti-aircraft missile systems near the Finnish border — on the Karelian Isthmus and in the Kola Peninsula. In addition, in the northwest of Russia — from St. Petersburg to Murmansk — five new “Nebo” radars have been deployed, which allow to control the airspace of Finland and the Baltic countries in the range of up to 400 km. (In June, 2016, President of the Russian Federation V. Putin during his visit to Helsinki, said in respond to Finland’s joining NATO Russia would bring its troops closer to the Finnish border. Earlier Finnish President Sauli Niinistö had said that in case of a serious deterioration of the situation in the security sphere, Finland would submit an application for membership in NATO).
Taking all this into consideration, the Baltic States and Northern Europe are undertaking specific activities to strengthen their defense. In particular, the leadership of Lithuania decided to purchase a US-Norwegian NASAMS (Norwegian Advanced Surface to Air Missile System) air defense complex. The complex was developed in Norway by Kongsberg jointly with Raytheon American firm and can be used both, against enemy aircraft and winged missiles.
III. Ukraine, International Organizations and Leading Western Countries
Russia’s armed aggression against Ukraine and its consequences remain in the spotlight of international organizations and leading Western countries. Thus, according to the conclusions of a special investigative commission of the Netherlands, made public on September 28, 2016, the Boeing-777 (flight MH-17) of Malaysia Airlines was shot down in the skies over the Donbas July 17, 2014 by an anti-aircraft “Buk-M2” missile system of Russian production, which came from the Russian Federation. According to the investigators, 9M317 missile launch was carried out from the area of the village of Pervomayskoye, which at that time was controlled by terrorists of the “DPR”. After the destruction of the aircraft, the “Buk-M2” AAMS returned to the territory of Russia.
These conclusions actually reveal a direct way to bring Russia to justice in an international tribunal. So, based on the proven fact of the destruction of the Boeing-777 by the Russian missile from the territory controlled by pro-Russian militants in the East of Ukraine, Malaysia has urged the international community to take decisive actions to all those responsible for the destruction of the aircraft of the Flight MH-17.
As expected, Russia has criticized the results of the investigation by a special investigative commission of the Netherlands and has refused to apologize for the incident with the destroyed plane. All this has led to another round of the “diplomatic war” between Russia and the Netherlands in the course of mutual invitation to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Ambassadors of the two countries with the demands to explain the positions of their leaderships.
3.1. International Organizations
The European Union. September 26, 2016, the European Parliament Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs voted in favor of including Ukraine into the list of countries with which the EU introduces visa-free regime. The decision was taken by unprecedented majority — 38 votes “for”, with 4 — “against”. October 11, 2016, the issue of granting Ukraine visa-free regime will be reviewed at the meeting of Justice and Home Affairs Council of the European Union.
Besides, the European Union took the side of Ukraine on the issue of countering trade and transit restrictions, which were introduced by Russia in relation to our state. Thus, on 30 September 2016, the European Commission sent to the World Trade Organization (WTO) a formal letter of intent to accede to Ukraine’s relevant claims submitted to the WTO, as a third party. At the same time, to counter Russia’s actions, the EU has provided Ukraine with additional trade preferences on a number of products exported by our country to Europe.
However, a significant problem, undermining the unity of the EU, including on the “Ukrainian issue”, remains the spread of nationalist, Euro-skeptic and pro-Russian sentiments, as well as the complication of the political situation in some countries of the European Union.
Thus, according to the results of the elections on September 25, 2016, to the local parliaments in the Italian province of Galicia and the Basque Country in Spain, won the center-right People’s Party of Spain and the Basque Nationalist Party which are in favor of maximum autonomy of their regions up to full independence.
In turn, on September 24-25, 2016, mass demonstrations were organized in Warsaw and other Polish cities by the so-called “Democracy Defense Committee” against “methods of government” of the current ruling party “Law and Justice” led by J. Kaczynski. In fact such actions are a strike against the main political force in Poland, defending the country’s interests from Russia and supporting Ukraine.
Last week anti-government meetings were also held in Brussels (Belgium). According to different estimates, to the street took 45 to 70 thousand people (teachers, health care workers and other public sector workers), who opposed the austerity of budget expenditures for social needs.
Against this background, September 26, 2016, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Portugal B. Silva in his interview with the Russian newspaper “Kommersant” suggested the desirability of a phased lifting of sanctions from Russia in the course of the progress in the implementation of the Minsk Agreements. At the same time, he expressed the need for the EU and NATO’s “dynamic dialogue” with Russia.
NATO. According to sociological researches, the idea of Ukraine’s possible membership in NATO is supported by more than 60 % of member countries of the Alliance, which completely refutes the NATO opponents’ statement about the “Alliance’s unwillingness to accept Ukraine”.
NATO’s commitment to the firm positions on supporting Ukraine in its counteracting Russia’s aggressive actions was confirmed by the Alliance during a meeting of the NATO-Ukraine Commission at the level of Ambassadors on 23 September, 2016. In the course of the talks, the participants discussed the issues of deepening cooperation between Ukraine and NATO in the context of the agreements reached on the results of the NATO summit in Warsaw (July 8-9, 2016), as well as security issues in the Donbas, development of the Minsk and Normandy processes.
In terms of demonstrating these NATO’s approaches, in the nearest future it is planned to hold a meeting of representatives of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Alliance and the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine in one of the eastern regions of our State.
3.2. Leading Western Countries
The USA. As part of the election campaign in the USA, on 26 September, 2016, were held public debates between the main candidates for the presidency of the United States of America — Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. As pointed out by most experts, the debate showed the superiority of H. Clinton, who clearly identified all the “ostentatious” essence of her opponent’s policy.
First of all, in this regard, H. Clinton mentioned D. Trump’s statements about the need to restore relations between the USA and Russia and lifting of Western sanctions against the Russian Federation, as well as the possibility of recognition of “the Crimea’s belonging to Russia”. The results of the debate once again allowed H. Clinton to be ahead of D. Trump in the electoral rating by more than 5 %.
IV. Other Important Trends and Developments Concerning Ukraine’s National Interests
Despite the Russian leadership’s regular attempts to demonstrate “stability” in the country, in the Krasnodar Territory of the Russian Federation, the protest movement of farmers is spreading. Thus, in September, 2016, has been created a new public organization “The Friendly Farmers” (similar to the names of Russian militants/“green men” — “polite people” in the Crimea and the Donbas), which aims to defend farmers’ interests.
In particular, they are preparing a nationwide march of the tractor drivers if the Russian leadership continues ignoring the farmers’ demand to protect their rights. Today, “The Friendly Farmers” hold events to get united with farmers’ organizations in other regions of Russia, as well as with the Russian “truckers” dissatisfied with increasing charges for use of roads.
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
October 1, 2016, the Russian Federation began its duties of the temporarily presidency of the UN Security Council. Taking into account Moscow’s strategic interests, there are no doubts that the above-mentioned will be fully used by V. Putin’s regime to justify its policy towards Ukraine and Syria.
This does not exclude the possibility of Russia’s organizing regular resonance provocations in the Crimea, in the East of Ukraine, or even in the territory of the Russian Federation itself, with further accusing Ukraine of “leading the state policy of terrorism”. Russia’s position as the Presidency of the UN Security Council, would enable it to put forward such allegations in the above-mentioned international body. Based on this, Moscow will blame Ukraine for the conflict in the Donbas, which will be used by the Putin regime as an argument for the statements about “…no reasons to continue sanctions against the Russian Federation”.
Besides, the period of Russia’s presidency of the UN Security Council coincides with the final stage of preparation of the election of a new Secretary-General of the United Nations (the powers of the current Secretary General Ban Ki-moon end on December 31, 2016). In this respect, Moscow is trying to “promote” the candidate favorable to it, in particular — the current Director of UNESCO Irina Bokova, who has quite a scandalous reputation and rather wide connections in Russia.
However, all this is unlikely to help the Russian Federation, confidently entering a new stage of confrontation with the West. As pointed out by international experts, “…in the last seven days, V. Putin has been taken down from the international stage irrevocably and forever”.
5.2. Prospects for the Development of Events in the Conflict Zones in Ukraine
Based on the current actions of Russia, which has no intention to comply with the terms of truce in the Donbas, we should expect Moscow’s further actions to provoke tensions in the conflict zone in the East of Ukraine. Given the actual lack of prospects for lifting of the US and EU sanctions against the Russian Federation, now because of the problems around Syria and the destruction of the aircraft Boeing-777 flight MH-17, the Russian-terrorist forces most likely will intensify fighting against the ATO forces.
In fact, any disengagement and establishing peace in the Donbas on the part of V. Putin’s regime is out of the question. Moscow is only wasting time, trying to exhaust Ukraine and its Western allies. At the same time, the Putin regime openly relies on the possibility of early parliamentary and presidential elections in Ukraine, which is actively being pushed by the pro-Russian opposition in the Parliament of our State and individual, so-called “national-democratic” forces.