LAST WEEK’S KEY FACTORS AND MAIN TRENDS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITUATION AROUND UKRAINE
(October 24-30, 2016)
I. Major-Profile Events in the Development of the Situation around Ukraine
The main challenge for Ukraine and its Western allies is aggressive and dual policy of Russia, which openly manipulates for its own purposes both, the Ukrainian and Syrian issues. As part of this policy, on the one hand, V. Putin’s regime demonstrates the “Russia’s peaceful intentions” and “willingness to make concessions in the settlement of the situation around Ukraine and Syria”, and on the other — it continues to lead aggressive neo-imperial policy. Due to this, Moscow is trying to avoid an extension of Western sanctions, which would have catastrophic consequences for Russia, and at the same time to implement its plans to restore Russia’s position as a great world power.
An example of such a policy was Russian President Vladimir Putin’s speech at the meeting of the “Valdai” international discussion club on October 26, 2016, in Sochi. Within the framework of “flirting” with the West, V. Putin stressed “Russia’s having no plans for global domination in the world and attacks on any country” and called on the political forces of the Russian Federation “to reduce the degree of propaganda aimed at aggravating the confrontation between Russia and NATO”. Besides, he agreed to the expansion of the “Normandy Format”, including through the USA joining it.
At the same time, Moscow’s real policy retains its very different character. Evidences of this are Russia’s actions in Ukraine and Syria, its continued attempts to influence the policy of the EU and to destabilize the situation in the Balkans, increasing groups of the RF Armed Forces in the western parts of the country, as well as demonstration of military force to the USA and Europe and open blackmail, including in the nuclear sphere.
The Kremlin’s such actions were estimated by the Director of the US National Intelligence J. Klepper in his speech at a conference of the Council on Foreign Relations, October 25, 2016, in New York City. According to him, V. Putin’s regime is trying to restore Russia’s role as a “superpower” with the level of the USA — the level it had in the times of the former USSR and the tsarist regime. However, due to the lack of sufficient resources to achieve this goal, Moscow goes to a confrontation with the US and Europe. With this in mind, J. Klepper described the relations between Russia and the United States, as “very bad”. In this context, the biggest problems, according to him, are the parties’ disagreements on the situation around Ukraine and Syria.
In his turn, the US Secretary of State J. Kerry expressed the joint USA and EU’s intentions to continue the pressure on the Putin regime by maintaining political and economic sanctions against it. At the same time, J. Kerry accused Russia of trying to influence the results of the US presidential election and interfering in the EU’s policy, which was an additional reason for rigidifying the West’s position towards Moscow.
J. Kerry’s statement was concretized by the Coordinator of the US State Department for the sanctions policy D. Fried. According to him, Washington is well positioned to apply additional restrictions on Russia if it expands the scale of the armed aggression against Ukraine or intensifies the fighting in Syria. In this regard, the United States will continue to closely coordinate its actions with the EU, as well as to use all the possibilities to coordinate the positions of the leading countries regarding the Putin regime within the framework of the “Big Seven” (G7).
Taking into consideration V. Putin’s continuing the armed aggression against Ukraine, as well as Moscow’s leading an aggressive anti-Western policy, on 24 October, 2016, the European Union’s sanctions, which had been imposed on Russia because of the “Ukrainian issue”, were joined by Montenegro, Albania, Liechtenstein and Norway. This decision was approved by the EU High Representative for foreign policy, F. Mogherini.
Against this background, another reason for further deterioration of relations between Russia and the West was the air strike on a school in the Syrian city of Idlib on 26 October, 2016, killing 22 pupils and 6 teachers. The USA, France, NATO’s leaders and the UN Children’s Fund blamed Russia and the Syrian leadership for the incident. Earlier, representatives of international humanitarian organizations had accused the Russian Federation and B. Assad’s regime of bombing Aleppo, despite their announcement of the so-called humanitarian pause.
As always, Russia has rejected the accusations and shifted the responsibility for the violation of the ceasefire in Syria onto the shoulders of “the controlled by the USA fighters from armed opposition groups” who allegedly refuse to cease hostilities. However, the Russian Foreign Ministry has warned the USA and the EU that Moscow is ready to give an “asymmetric response” in case of strengthening of sanctions against Russia. For its part, the Russian Ministry of Defense has expressed its intention to consider Iraq’s and Libya’s requests for military assistance in case of receiving such requests.
October 29, 2016, under the pretext of rebuffing the rebels’ offensive in Aleppo, Russian and B. Assad regime’s combat aviation resumed bombardment of eastern areas of the city.
II. Russia’s Armed Aggression against Ukraine
The above-mentioned aggressive policy is fully implemented by Russia against Ukraine, as evidenced by the development of the situation around the armed conflict in the Donbas and in the Crimea.
2.1. The East of Ukraine (The ATO Zone)
October 26, 2016, a next meeting of the Tripartite Contact Group took place in Minsk. The main issues were determining the possibilities to implement the earlier reached agreement on disengagement of the sides’ forces near the village of Stanytsya Luhanska and approval of new sections of the withdrawal. It was agreed to continue work in this direction.
During the meeting, Russia showed a willingness to make a conciliatory gesture toward Ukraine. Thus, the representative of the Russian Federation B. Gryzlov agreed with the possibility of deploying units of the OSCE Police Mission, armed with military service weapon, but only on the sections of the front line from where the forces would have been withdrawn. Against this backdrop, the leaders of the “DPR” and “LPR” have announced a suspension of preparation for the elections in the occupied territories, which were planned for November 6, 2016.
However, all this does not mean Russia’s giving up its insidious plans for Ukraine. In particular, B. Gryzlov made a proposal at the next meeting of the Trilateral Contact Group (November 9, 2016) “to finalize the procedure for the entry into force of the law on the special status of certain regions of Donetsk and Luhansk regions, based on Steinmeier’s formula” (in fact, it means holding elections in the breakaway republics prier to resolving security issues).
At the same time, the leadership of the Russian Federation through its puppets in the Donbas has actually demonstrated having no intentions to implement the agreements reached during the meeting of the “Normandy Four” on 19 October 2016. Thus, the leaders of the “DPR” and “LPR” came up with their own vision of the “road map” to resolve the situation in the Donbas, which is completely different from Ukraine’s point of view and is identical to that of Russia’s.
Moscow’s political “initiatives” were supported by intensified fighting in the East of Ukraine. On the day of the meeting of the Trilateral Contact Group, the number of attacks on the positions of the ATO forces and civilian settlements had increased to more than 70 per day, which is almost twice as many as before the ceasefire. Moreover, on 26 October 2016, there was a provocative shelling of Makiyivka, which resulted in civilian casualties. All this was used by Russia to justify its actions and to accuse Ukraine of violating the truce.
2.2. The Crimean Peninsula
In the context of the United States and the EU’s ‘ increasing pressure on Russia over the “Ukrainian issue”, the Russian Federation’s leadership intensifies measures to demonstrate “the Crimea’s belonging to Russia” as well as “international recognition” of this “fact”. In particular, on the 26th of October 2016, Russian President V. Putin for the second time at latest visited the Crimea under the pretext of taking part in the Forum of the “All-Russia People’s Front”.
While in the Crimea, the Russian President once again justified Russia’s annexation of the Peninsula, as well as “the Peninsula’s being historically part of Russia” and also expressed Moscow’s intention to focus on the speedy resolution of the Crimean problems, first of all in the energy and transport sector. According to V. Putin, by the end of the year there will be a gas main pipeline from the Krasnodar Territory of the Russian Federation, and in 2018 — a number of power stations and a bridge across the Kerch Strait will start functioning. At the same time, the Russian President acknowledged the difficulties with the implementation of these projects due to lack of funds in Russia.
However, October 22-28 this year, within the framework of the so-called “people’s diplomacy” project initiated by the State Duma of the Russian Federation, the Crimea was visited by the delegation of “politicians”, “public figures” and “businessmen” from Germany. The delegation included representatives of the “Left Party” and the “Unity” party of immigrants as well as adventurers from the construction business who are looking to improve their affairs at the expense of Russian orders.
2.3. Other Aspects of the Russian Federation’s Actions against Ukraine and the West
Worsening of the relations between V. Putin’s regime and the West are accompanied by Russia’s non-stop building up of its armed forces’ groups in the areas of direct clashes with the US and NATO, and demonstrations of its military capabilities.
Thus, the Naval Task Force of the Russian Northern Fleet, led by the heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser “Admiral Kuznetsov”, continued heading to the Mediterranean Sea. Due to possible Russians’ provocations during their passing the North Sea, they were shadowed by the destroyer of the Netherlands’ Navy, and in the English Channel — by two Royal Navy warships. At this, under the pressure of NATO’s leadership, Spain, Italy and Malta did not allow Russian warships to visit their ports to resupply fuel.
October 23, 2016, to enhance the efficiency of the control of the group of American warships in the Mediterranean region in the situation of the arrival there of the Naval Task Force of Russia’s Northern Fleet, the Command flagship of the 6th US Navy Fleet “Mount Whitney” has sailed from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean Sea. In turn, the US Navy destroyer “Carney”, equipped with Aegis missile defense system, has entered the Black Sea.
Against the background of the Naval Task Force of Russia’s Northern Fleet sailing to the Mediterranean Sea, Russia is demonstrating the ability to increase its naval group in the Baltic Sea by means of inter-theater maneuver of forces and means. Thus, on 26 October, 2016, two small missile ships of the Russian Black Sea Fleet — “Zelyonyi Dol” and “Serpukhov” (armed with high-precision cruise missiles “Caliber”, capable of carrying nuclear weapons) arrived at the Baltiysk naval base in Kaliningrad region of the Russian Federation. At this, on 23 October, 2016, these ships provocatively sailed through the Netherlands’ exclusive maritime economic zone.
At the same time, Russia continues practicing elements of a full-scale war against the USA and NATO, including with possible use of nuclear weapons. October 26, 2016, there were trainings of the Joint Air Defence System of the CIS. 130 command posts, radio-technical and anti-aircraft missile troops’ units, as well as Su-27, MiG-29 and MiG-31 from Russia, Belarus, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan were engaged in the trainings.
Enemy air targets were simulated by planes of the long-range (strategic) bombers Tu-160, Tu-95MS and Tu-22M3 of the Aerospace Forces (VKS) of the RF Armed Forces, about 100 Su-24, Su-34, Su-35 of the bombardment and attack aviation, as well the Army’s aviation’s helicopters Ka-27 and Mi-8 of the RF Armed Forces and other participants in the training.
According to the official report, they were practicing the use of duty air defense facilities against violators of state borders of the CIS countries. However, judging by the size and composition of training manpower and resources, Russia was practicing tasks of breaking through the enemy air defense systems, and of meeting a massive air strike on the western and southern directions.
Russia also continued actions to build up groups of troops on the North-Western, Western and South-Western strategic directions. Thus, it continues the deployment of the newly formed units and formations of the 11th Army Corps (HQ — in Kaliningrad), 6th Combined Arms Army (HQ — in St. Petersburg) of the Western Military District of the RF Armed Forces. Besides, by the end of this year it is planned to have completed the restoration of the 144th Motorized Rifle Division (HQ — in Yelnya, Smolensk region) of the 1st Tank Army, as well as the deployment of a Tank Division (HQ — in Boguchar, Voronezh region) and of the new Motorized Rifle Brigade (HQ — in Klintsy, Bryansk region) of the 20th Combined Arms Army (headquarters — in Voronezh) of the RF Armed Forces.
Besides, the plans have been announced to create a new Combined Arms Army (presumably, with headquarters in the Crimea) of the Southern Military District of the RF Armed Forces, including the newly formed 150th Motorized Rifle Division (headquarters in Novocherkassk, Rostov region), the 1st Missile Brigade (headquarters in Krasnodar, is armed with “Iskander-M” missile systems), the 126th Separate Brigade of the RF Black Sea Fleet (Perevalnoe, Crimea) and other units and formations of the Russian Federation’s Armed Forces, deployed in the Crimean Peninsula.
III. Ukraine, International Organizations and Leading Western Countries
The main direction of the activity of international organizations and Western countries in the security sphere is countering threats from Moscow.
3.1. International Organizations
The European Union. Taking into consideration Russia’s pressure on the EU, as well as its attempts to influence the policy of the Organization, the European Union continues to conduct a coherent policy to reduce dependence on Russian energy carriers. October 25, 2016, the European Parliament adopted a resolution calling on the European Commission to prevent the implementation of the Russian project of construction of the “Nord Stream-2” gas pipeline from Russia to Germany under the Baltic Sea. As stated in the resolution, “the construction of such a gas pipeline is completely contrary to European interests, as it would provide Russia with strong leverage of influence on the EU, as well as would thwart the plans of diversification of routes of energy supply of countries of Central and Eastern Europe.” Last summer, Poland’s Anti-Monopoly Regulator UOKiK refused to agree on plans for construction of the “Nord Stream-2”, explaining its decision by the possibility of Russia’s monopolizing the European gas market.
At the same time, the European Commission granted permission to the Russian “Gazprom” on the increased use of the capacity of the OPAL gas pipeline connecting the “Nord Stream-1” with the European gas system.
NATO. The Alliance’s leadership is taking measures to implement the decisions of the Warsaw Summit of NATO of July 2016, regarding the strengthening of the military presence of the Alliance in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and in the Baltic states. In particular, this issue was considered at a meeting of NATO countries’ Defense Ministers on 26-27th October 2016 in Brussels.
During the meeting, NATO Secretary General J. Stoltenberg confirmed the increase in the level of challenges and threats to members of the Organization from V. Putin’s regime. Manifestations of this were called the increased activity of operational and combat trainings of the RF Armed Forces with practicing issues of military confrontation with the US and NATO, Russia’s deploying “Iskander-M” missile systems in Kaliningrad region, as well as Moscow’s withdrawal from the treaty with Washington for processing of weapons-grade uranium.
Based on the above-mentioned circumstances, J. Stoltenberg pointed out NATO’s readiness to continue supporting Ukraine in its confrontation with Russia. According to him, NATO and Ukraine already have an unprecedented level of cooperation, which will continue to grow. J. Stoltenberg also acknowledged the presence of Russian troops in the Donbas and urged the EU to maintain sanctions against the leadership of Russia until Russia’s fulfillment of the Minsk Agreements.
Along with this, they amended the plans of deployment of NATO’s new units in the CEE and Baltic States. The plans provide for deployment of four full battalion tactical groups, as part of units of the Armed Forces of NATO member countries, including: in Poland — the US (900 people), Great Britain and Romania (total of 100 people); in Lithuania — Germany (600), France, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, Croatia, Luxembourg (total of 400 people); Latvia — Canada (400), Italy (150), Poland, Albania, and Slovenia (total of 450 people); in Estonia — Great Britain (800), France, Denmark and Estonia (total of 200 people).
Special attention will be paid to strengthening the USA and NATO’s military presence in the Black Sea region, which is becoming a major focus of the collision of Russia’s and the West’s interests. Thus, in response to Russia’s militarization of the Crimea, there is a plan to deploy a multinational brigade of 5 thousand military servicemen in Romania consisting of military units from the USA, Germany, Great Britain, Canada, Turkey, the Netherlands and Poland. The air patrols in the region will be enforced by the UK RAF. As of today, the US Task Force “East” has been deployed in Romania and Bulgaria. It includes two air and naval bases, and two ground battalion tactical groups.
IV. Other Important Trends and Developments that Affect Ukraine’s National Interests
Russia. The US and EU sanctions cause further aggravation of financial problems in Russia, which makes the RF leadership significantly cut social spending. The federal budget for 2017-2019, provides for the decrease in funding medical sector by 50 % and in funding education — by 40 %. According to the plans of the Russian Federation’s leadership, the above-mentioned cuts should be offset by local budgets. At the same time, many of them are already on the verge of bankruptcy, and this does not allow them to increase social spending.
Worsening of the socio-economic situation in Russia leads to a resumption of the elements of political opposition in the country. During the Plenum of the RF Communist Party on 22 October 2016, the Party’s leader G. Zyuganov accused the Russian authorities of leading a destructive economic policy, and of falsification of the results of the parliamentary elections. According to G. Zyuganov, if the government does not change its position, the Communist Party can reconsider the “Crimean consensus” (an informal agreement on cooperation reached between the major political forces of the Russian Federation after Russia’s capture of the Crimea).
Moldova. October 30, 2016, Moldova had presidential elections for the first time on the basis of a nationwide vote. On the eve of the elections, the leader of the election race — the head of the Socialist Party I. Dodon (takes openly pro-Russian position and is supported by Russia) declared “the Crimea’s belonging to Russia”. In view of I. Dodon’s political orientation, his coming to power could lead to a change in Moldova’s foreign policy course from the West to Russia. In this way, Russia would get a new satellite for the implementation of its plans in the former Soviet territories and regarding Ukraine. At the same time, we should not exclude the possibility of another political crisis in Moldova.
Serbia and Montenegro. Along with support for pro-Russian forces and provoking conflicts in the former Soviet territories, the Putin regime strives also to strengthen Russia’s positions in the Balkans and to destabilize the region. Last week, the law enforcement agencies of Serbia arrested and deported several Russian citizens involved in the attempted coup in Montenegro (“…for their participation in the preparation of terrorist acts in Montenegro”) which has recently joined NATO and is a candidate for the EU membership.
According to Montenegro’s leadership, a coup was planned by a group of criminals (including foreigners) after the parliamentary elections in the country on the 16th of October 2016. The coupists intended to create a situation of chaos in the capital of Montenegro by attacking demonstrators from the opposition, and then to capture the building of the Parliament and other key state institutions of the country. At this, the authorities of Serbia and Montenegro point out “the coupists’ ties with a foreign state”.
The Russian Security Council’s Secretary N. Patrushev’s sudden visit to Serbia that followed, was connected by the leading European experts exactly with Moscow’s attempts in any possible way to hush up the scandal that erupted due to the deportation of Russians-saboteurs that had been preparing a terrorist attack in Montenegro.
Now the question arises and not without reason, whether the planned joint Russian-Belarusian-Serbian military exercises of the Airborne and Special Operations Forces in Serbia “Slavonic Brotherhood-2016” and the Russian-Serbian Air Force exercises “BARS-2016” in October 2016, as well as the sudden sailing to the Mediterranean Sea of the the detachment of combat ships of the Russian Northern Fleet, led by the heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser “Admiral Kuznetsov” were not devoted to that particular event?
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 nearest future one of the main factors influencing the situation around Ukraine will be the results of the presidential elections in the United States, scheduled for November 8, 2016. According to opinion polls, today the Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton is leading by the ratings, being almost 10 % ahead of the representative of the Republican Party D. Trump.
This gives H. Clinton a real chance to win, that would be beneficial for Ukraine in terms of the United States’ future policy. Thus, within the framework of her election campaign, H. Clinton has consistently demonstrated the intention to continue the pressure on Russia over the “Ukrainian issue”, as well as to increase support for Ukraine.
At the same time, according to both, Western and Russian experts (including the leadership of the Russian MFA), the USA’s foreign policy will actually remain the same under all circumstances. Evidence of this is called D. Trump’s giving up his open support of Russia, especially after V. Putin’s regime’s violation of the peace agreements regarding Syria and the Donbas.
In particular, as the representative of a candidate from the Republican Party, the ex-governor of Maryland R. Ehrlich said on the 25th October, 2016 at the conference on US policy after the elections, D. Trump already supports Ukraine and a does not approve of Russia’s aggression against it.
5.2. Prospects for the Development of Events in the Conflict Zones in Ukraine
Taking into consideration the blatant cynicism of Russia’s policy, it is necessary to expect continuation of double standards in the Kremlin’s actions, which, on the one hand, will demonstrate “commitment to a peaceful settlement of the conflict in the East of Ukraine”, and on the other — will make every effort to achieve its aggressive goals with respect to our State.
In particular, in this connection, Moscow could intensify the fighting in the Donbas during the preparation of the next Tripartite Contact Group’s meeting in Minsk, in which the Russian side is going to put forward unacceptable for Ukraine initiatives (voiced by B. Gryzlov October 26, 2016). Evidence of the Kremlin’s intentions to increase pressure on Ukraine is the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission’s report about the transfer of additional Russian troops and weapons to the occupied territories of Ukraine.
However, the deterring factor for V. Putin’s regime is the possibility of the USA and the EU’s introduction of new sanctions against Russia over both, the “Ukrainian” and the “Syrian” issues. In particular, the above-mentioned issue is scheduled to be considered at the meeting of the leaders of the United States, Germany, France, Britain and Italy on 17-18 November 2016 in Berlin.
5.3. Other Important Events that Will Have an Impact on Ukraine’s Interests and Security
November 1, 2016, the Lower House of the Parliament of the Netherlands is going to consider the issue of the ratification of the Association Agreement between Ukraine and the EU. On the eve of the meeting, Dutch Prime Minister M. Rutte called on the opposition to positively resolve this issue. According to him, the ratification of the agreement by all EU members is crucial for the stability of Europe. However, as of today, a number of political forces in the Netherlands, in particular, D66, GroenLinks and CDA continue opposing the ratification of the Agreement on the Association of Ukraine with the EU.