Week’s News Express Analysis № 23/11

 

LAST WEEK’S KEY FACTORS AND MAIN TRENDS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITUATION AROUND UKRAINE

(October 31-November 06, 2016)

 

I. Major-Profile Events in the Development of the Situation around Ukraine

The main trend in the development of the situation in the world, Europe and around Ukraine is a further aggravation of relations between Russia and the USA / NATO which have actually returned to the state of “cold war”. At this, the confrontation of the parties is increasingly moving into the military sphere, which directly influences the interests and security of our State.

Thus, during the telephone conference at the National Defense Control Center (November 1, 2016) and the meeting of the joint board of the Belarusian and Russian military departments (November 2, 2016), Russian Defense Minister S. Shoigu accused the USA and NATO of undermining the strategic stability in Europe and in the world. As evidence of this he mentioned “…the USA’s attempts to impose its will on other countries through economic and political dictatorship and military pressure”. In this regard, S. Shoigu made a special emphasis on “the US’ and NATO’s building up their offensive capability” in Central and Eastern Europe as well as in the Baltic region, including the deployment of new military bases and development of the military infrastructure.

According to S. Shoigu, taking into consideration such actions of the US, Russia is preparing adequate measures. In particular, in the above-mentioned context, the Russian Defense Minister pointed out Moscow’s increased attention to supplying the Western and Southern Military District of the RF Armed Forces with modern weapons and military equipment, as well as to improving their operational and combat training.

The significant deterioration of relations between Russia and the United States over Ukraine to the lowest level (“the lowest of the low”) since the time of the last “cold war” was also admitted by Russian Prime Minister D. Medvedev in his interview with Israeli media on the eve of his visit to that country.

In turn, the United States and NATO have expressed considerable concern about the possibility of Russia’s deploying nuclear weapons in Kaliningrad region of the Russian Federation. According to the US Permanent Representative to NATO Douglas Lute’s statementin a briefing in Brussels on 2 November 2016, if this fact is confirmed, it will radically change the situation and will require the United States of America and the Alliance’s appropriate response.

Russia’s actions were negatively estimated also by representatives of special services of leading European countries. For example, commenting on Putin’s regime’s policy, Director of the British MI5 Security Service (the UK’s Counter-Intelligence Office) Andrew Parker pointed out the growth of Russia’s aggressiveness, which is becoming more acute. According to A. Parker, within the framework of this policy, Moscow uses the whole range of government bodies and law enforcement agencies. At this, Russia’s intelligence activities in the United Kingdom get activated in order to get an access to classified information in the military, political and economic spheres. Taking this into consideration the Director of MI5 has called on European countries to pay more attention to real threats from Russia.

Concerns about Putin’s policy have been also expressed by the Minister of National Defence of Poland Antoni Macierewicz. According to his assessment, “…Moscow’s military activity and aggressiveness have an unprecedentedly high level; at this Russia has been consistently seeking to destabilize Europe”. Based on this, A. Macierewicz stressed the need to strengthen the defense of Poland and to enhance security of the whole Central and Eastern Europe and the Baltic region within the framework of NATO.

Similar views were expressed by the Minister of Defence of Germany, Ursula von der Leyen. In an interview with the German media network RedaktionsNetzwerk Deutschlands on 2 November, 2016, she advocated the need to strengthen Europe’s defense capabilities, regardless of the results of the US presidential elections. The reasons for this were called raising threats from Russia, the situation in Ukraine, Syria and Iraq, as well as the intensification of international terrorism. In this context, U. Leyen assigned special importance to strengthening NATO as the main guarantor of European security.

Against this background, Russia continues demonstrating its policy of ambiguity on the Syrian track. Thus, after the resumption of the bombing of Aleppo on October 29, 2016 (under the pretext of rebuffing the counter-offensive of the Assad regime’s opponents), on November 4, 2016, the Russian government announced yet another “humanitarian pause”. However, based on the experience of Russia’s actions in Ukraine (Ilovaysk and Debaltsevo), B. Assad’s opposition armed units refused to leave the city through the determined “humanitarian corridors”. As a result — on the 5th of November 2016 bombings of Aleppo were resumed.

At the same time, Russia continues to suffer significant losses in Syria. Thus, on 3 November, 2016, in the province of Homs another Russian combat helicopter Mi-24N was destroyed. Since the beginning of Moscow’s direct intervention into the armed conflict in Syria (30 September, 2015) the Russian troops have lost at least 7 helicopters, including: November 2, 2015 — Mi-8; April 12, 2016 — Mi-24N; July 8, 2016 — Mi-35M; August 1, 2016 — Mi-8; September 2, 2016 — Mi-35M; September 29, 2016 — Mi-35M and November 3, 2016 — Mi-24N. In addition, according to American intelligence and analytical company Stratfor, militants from the “Islamic State” terrorist group in mid-May 2016 destroyed four Mi-24 Russian helicopters at the airbase T4 in the Syrian province of Homs, near Palmyra.

November 1, 2016, within the framework of strengthening the Russian Armed Forces’ grouping around Syria, the Mediterranean Sea was entered by the Naval Task Force of the Russian Northern Fleet, led by the heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser “Admiral Kuznetsov”. In the North Atlantic it was joined by three submarines of the Russian Navy with cruise missiles on board (of those, two are atomic of “Shark” class, and one is diesel-electric of “Kilo” class). Besides, the Black Sea Fleet sent into the Mediterranean the latest missile frigate “Admiral Grigorovich” (armed with cruise missiles) and the patrol ship “Smetlivyi” (with a counter-terrorist unit of the Marine Corps on board).

According to NATO officials, the above-mentioned confirms Russia’s intentions to expand the scope of attacking Syria and also with the use of cruise missiles. Besides, they point out that the group of the Russian Navy near the coast of Syria is unprecedented by the number, types of warships and weaponry.

 

II. Russia’s Armed Aggression against Ukraine

2.1. The East of Ukraine (The ATO Zone)

During the week the Russian-terrorist forces continued shelling positions of the ATO forces and civilian settlements with a peak intensity of up to 60 attacks per day. At this, the enemy resumed the use of heavy artillery of 152 mm caliber and multiple launch rocket systems. The highest intensity of attacks was observed near the village of Stanytsya Luhanska (the area for disengagement of forces of the parties), on the arc from Svitlodarsk to Popasna (near Debaltsevo, according to the line dividing the parties, determined by the Minsk Agreements, should be under the control of Ukraine), and also near Mariupol (the “sea gate” of the Donbas, is of particular importance for Russia and is under constant threat of attack on its part).

Against this background, Russia cynically shifts to Ukraine the responsibility for maintaining the tension in the Donbas. November 1, 2016, Russian Security Council Secretary N. Patrushev accused Kyiv of “unwillingness to stop the smoldering the civil war in the East of Ukraine”. In such a way he regarded the position of our State with respect to the impossibility of fulfilling the political part of the Minsk Agreements before having settled the key security issues.

At the same time, contrary to the statements, made earlier by V. Putin and other representatives of the Russian leadership on “…the possibility of deployment of the units of the OSCE Police Mission, armed with military service weapon, in the areas of the contact line, from which their forces will be withdrawn”, on November 3, 2016, the RF Deputy Foreign Minister G. Karasin stressed the need to coordinate the issue with the “DPR” and “LPR” (which of course would never agree to it). In addition, he said, “…at present the issue of deployment in the Donbas of an international armed mission is not considered in a practical way; OSCE has neither the experience nor the resources nor the legal base for military operations”.

In their turn, the leaders of the “DPR” and “LPR” expressed a firm intention to hold elections in the self-proclaimed republics in 2017 — under any circumstances.

 

2.2. The Crimean Peninsula

The Russian Federation’s leadership continues active attempts to “legitimize” its actions on the annexation of the Crimea in order to justify them in the eyes of the West. In particular, in this respect, Moscow continues its efforts to ensure international recognition of the Crimea’s “belonging to Russia”. Thus, on 1st November, 2016, the Chairman of the State Duma Committee on Economic Policy and Entrepreneurship E. Fedorov sent an official appeal to the Islamic Consultative Council (Parliament) of Iran to recognize the Crimean peninsula, as “an integral part of Russia”, as well as to join the economic activity in the Crimea.

At the same time Russia continues efforts to form a negative opinion about Ukraine as “…a country that carries out policy of state terrorism”. Thus, on 31 October, 2016, at a meeting of the anti-terrorist committee the so-called “Prime Minister of the Crimean government” S. Aksenov set the task to strengthen terrorist security of chemical plants in the north of the Peninsula (in particular of the “Crimean Titan”, “Crimean Soda Plant” and “Brom” plants). He explained the “necessity” of such actions by “the proximity of Ukraine, which increases the risk of terrorist attacks”.

However, the results of sociological research in Russia suggest maintaining of the downward trend in the level of support for Russia’s annexation of the Ukrainian Crimea among the Russian population. This fact is a bad headache for the occupying authorities of the Crimean Peninsula. In particular, the Deputy Chairman of the “Council of Ministers” of the Crimea G. Muradov called on the Crimean Deputies in the State Duma on the federal level to make the prosecution of persons who disagree with the “Russian status” of the Crimean Peninsula.

About Moscow’s uncompromised intentions to strengthen its positions in the Crimean Peninsula and deepening the latter’s integration into the Russian state is evidenced by the decision of the State Duma of the Russian Federation on the establishment within the framework of Russia’s Nationalities Committee of a separate sub-committee to ensure the legislative implementation of the state policy of the Russian Federation in the Crimea and Sevastopol.

 

2.2. Other Aspects of the Russian Federation’s Actions against Ukraine and the West

In accordance with the amended plans, after the attempted coup in Montenegro (October 16, 2016, with participation of Serbian and Russian citizens), on the 2nd of November 2016, in Serbia were launched the “Slavonic Brotherhood-2016” Russian-Belarusian-Serbian exercises of Airborne Troops (Russia) and Special Task Operations Forces (Belarus) (will last till November 15, 2016). From Russia in the exercises are taking part 150 military servicemen from the Separate Reconnaissance Battalion of the 98th Airborne Division (Ivanovo), three Il-76MD military transport aircraft, three BMD-2 combat vehicles and the work unit of the “Tachyon” UAV; from Belarus — 50 paratroopers from the 103rd Separate Mobile Brigade of Special Operations Forces (Vitebsk); from Serbia — 330 military servicemen, as well as MiG-29 fighter aircraft and Mi-17 helicopters.

The exercises are on Serbia’s Batajnica and Kovin airfields, as well as at “Pasulyanske Livadia” training field. The participants are mastering joint actions of special units to detect, block and eliminate illegal armed groups and their bases. A feature of the teaching is the use of miniature UAVs (the size of about 15 cm, equipped with thermal imagers, cameras, video-cameras and communications means), developed and manufactured by the Joint Instrument-Making Corporation in Russia.

 

At the same time, Russia continued provocations against the Baltic States. November 2, 2016, the RF for the sixth time since the beginning of this year violated the air border of Estonia. Thus, the AN-148 of the RF FSB Border Service entered Estonian airspace near the island of Vaindloo.

 

III. Ukraine, International Organizations and Leading Western Countries

3.1. International Organizations

The European Union. A significant obstacle in the process of Ukraine’s European integration is delaying by the EU countries of the process of ratification of the Association Agreement between Ukraine and the European Union. Thus, on October 31, 2016, the Dutch government urged the country’s Parliament to postpone for 6 weeks the consideration of this issue “for further consultations and negotiations”. At the same time, the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, M. Rutte pointed out the possibility of a positive decision only in case of the EU’s adoption of a legally binding document, which should contain provisions on the exclusion of guarantees of Ukraine’s joining the European Union, as well as the prohibition of military and additional financial aid to Ukraine and the free movement of Ukrainian labor force in European countries. The European Commission agreed to consider these demands.

NATO. In the context of the continuation of Russia’s armed aggression against Ukraine, it is very important for our country to deepen cooperation with the Alliance. In this regard, exemplary character had a conference on NATO’s assistance to Ukraine (Kyiv, November 2-3, 2016). During the Conference, the Head of the NATO Representation to Ukraine and Director of the NATO Liaison Office, O. Vinnikov confirmed the Alliance’s intentions to continue to support our country. According to him, Ukraine is a priority partner for the Alliance, which will continue to provide assistance in strengthening the defense capacity of Ukraine and its movement towards European and Euro-Atlantic integration.

First of all, such assistance will be provided in the sphere of bringing Defense component of Ukraine up to NATO standards, which will improve Ukraine’s capabilities to deter Russia’s aggression. To this end, the Alliance will focus on the implementation of an integrated package of measures adopted at the meeting of NATO-Ukraine Commission at the summit of the Alliance in July, 2016 in Warsaw.

 

3.2. Leading Western Countries

The USA. The United States maintains a strong position to support Ukraine in its confrontation with Russia. According to US Ambassador to Ukraine M. Jovanovic, Washington constantly monitors the situation in the Donbas and in the Crimea, and is ready to tighten sanctions against the Russian Federation in case of Moscow’s expansion of the scale of the military aggression against Ukraine.

At the same time, M. Jovanovic has supported Ukraine’s approach to resolving the situation in the Donbas, which provides for the implementation of the political part of the Minsk Agreements only after having ensured security in the conflict zone. At the same time, the US Ambassador confirmed Washington’s having no plans for joining the “Normandy” format of the talks to resolve the crisis in the East of Ukraine. According to her, the US is using other methods, including, within the framework of bilateral dialogue with Russia, and consultations with the Federal Republic of Germany and France.

The United Kingdom. The UK’s plans for leaving the EU (Brexit) continue to cause significant differences, both in the British society, and in the country’s ruling circles. On the 2nd of November, 2016, the UK High Court took a decision on the feasibility of implementation of the above-mentioned plans by the British government only if they are approved by the Parliament. Taking into consideration the presence in the British Parliament of a significant number of opponents of Brexit, the process of the UK’s leaving the EU can take a lot of time. The UK government has already appealed the decision of the High Court, and this complicates the situation even more.

 

IV. Other Important Trends and Developments that Affect Ukraine’s National Interests

Russia. According to the until 2034 long-term budget forecast, which was submitted to the State Duma of the Russian Federation together with the draft federal budget for 2017-2019, the Russian economy will remain stagnant for at least next 20 years and will completely fall behind the leading economies of the world. The forecast also recognizes that foreign investments into Russia’s economy won’t grow.

In turn, the Russian Ministry of Economic Development has revised the forecast of the drop in GDP in the country in 2016 — from 0.2 % to 0.6 % (at the beginning of the year they expected GDP growth at the level of not less than 1.2 %). For comparison — on the results of the 3rd quarter of this year, US GDP grew by 3 %, GDP of France — by 1.1 %. At the same time, experts point out the absolute incompatibility of the Russian economy and the economies of leading European countries. Thus, in 2015, Russia’s GDP amounted to 1.3 trillion US dollars, while the GDP of the USA was 18 trillion US dollars, and of France — 2.4 trillion US dollars. This leaves Russia no chance to win in the confrontation with USA and EU in the economic sphere, within the framework of “sanction wars” included.

All this leads to further complication of the financial problems in Russia, makes the Russian leadership take additional measures to reduce budget expenditures. For example, after a double decrease in spending on education and healthcare in the draft federal budget for 2017-2018, it decided also on the reduction of military spending by 30 % — from 3.89 trillion rubles to 2.84 trillion rubles. At the same time, the spending of the article “Security and Law Enforcement Activity” remained unchanged at the level of 1.94 trillion rubles. The above-mentioned shows an increase in Putin’s regime’s concern about the possibility of internal unrests in Russia as a result of worsening of the socio-economic situation in the country.

Moldova. According to the results of the first round of presidential elections in the Republic of Moldova, the openly pro-Russian leader of the Socialist Party of the Republic of Moldova I. Dodon is a winner. He won 47.98 % of votes, while his main rival — the pro-Western leader of the “Action and Solidarity” Party, M. Sandu — 38.71 % of the vote. Despite the scheduling of the second round of the elections for November 13, 2016, experts with a high degree of probability predict that I. Dodon will be elected the new President of Moldova.

At the same time, there is a number of problems in the relationship among pro-Russian left-wing parties which could affect the final election results. In particular, the ex-candidate of the “Our Party” (NP) D. Chubashenko (ranked third in the first round of the elections) promises his electorate’s support to I. Dodon only in case of the provision of guarantees on the termination of the criminal case against the leader of the NP R. Usatyi.

 

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

Next week, decisive for Ukraine and, in general, for the situation in the world, will be the results of the presidential elections (November 8, 2016) in the USA. “Borysfen Intel” Analytical Centre has repeatedly dealt with this issue and provided its estimates. However, the strategic importance of the US elections, as well as the dynamic nature of electoral processes in the country with unpredictable consequences, need great attention to this topic.

All this is especially relevant in terms of approximate equality of ratings of the main candidates for the US presidency — namely, the candidate from the Democratic Party, H. Clinton and the representative of the Republican Party D. Trump, which leads to an exacerbation of the political struggle between them. At this, in the struggle are actively involved different political forces and the media, statesmen and federal agencies of the USA (the current US President B. Obama, the FBI and the CIA included), and this can have long-term negative consequences for the United States of America in terms of undermining the internal stability of the country and its international authority.

Despite the experts’ assessments regarding the immutability of the US policy regardless of the result of the presidential elections, there will be changes in Washington’s positions, including in its attitude to Russia’s armed aggression against Ukraine. It is believed that if H. Clinton is elected US President, she will increase the pressure on Russia both, over the “Ukrainian” and over the “Syrian” issues. In his turn, D. Trump quite possibly will seek compromises with Moscow, including at the expense of Ukraine’s interests. That is what Putin’s regime counts on, trying to influence the results of the presidential elections in the United States through hacker cyber attacks on government institutions of the country.

The US Intelligence Service believes that behind the latest cyber attacks on electronic communications systems of individuals and institutions in the United States, including the breaking of electronic boxes of political organizations, is the Russian government. This is stated in the joint statement of the US Department of Homeland Security and Office of Director of National Intelligence. The document stresses that the data theft and “leaks” of information, which are intended to influence the electoral process in the United States, have all the hallmarks of methods and motives, which are observed in Russia’s targeted efforts. “Taking into consideration the scale and sensitivity of these efforts, we believe that only Russian high rank officials could give the order for such events”, — points out the US intelligence. It is also stressed that not only the USA, but also a number of other countries have recently recorded scanning and probing of their electoral systems, which in most cases came from servers controlled by the Russian company.

Thus, according to the Bulgarian President R. Plevneliev, Russia is trying to destabilize and split Europe by cyber attacks. According to him, the Kremlin is trying to influence the policy of his country and other European countries by funding pro-Russian political (opposition) parties and spreading anti-European propaganda. With regard to Bulgaria, since last year, the website of the CEC of Bulgaria and a number of government websites have been attacked by hackers, who are related to the same group as the organizers of the attacks on the site of the US Democratic Party on the eve of the presidential elections. Of particular concern to the Bulgarian side is the threat of this kind of cyber attacks before and during the elections of the President and Vice-President of the country on 6 November, 2016.

Besides, the US leadership’s attention being drawn to the presidential elections in the country can be used by Russia to achieve decisive successes in Syria in terms of large-scale support for the Assad regime to establish control over the city of Aleppo. Evidence of this is the concentration of the Russian powerful naval group in the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea just before the US elections.

 

5.2. Prospects for the Development of Events in the Conflict Zones in Ukraine

In the situation of the USA’ s being busy with its internal problems, Russia can also intensify the fighting in the Donbas on the eve of a meeting of the Trilateral Contact Group in Minsk on November 9, 2016. This has to put pressure on Ukraine in order to force our State to agree to Russia’s initiatives in “resolving” the situation in the Donbas, which are planned to be put forward during the meeting in Minsk (in fact, they provide for holding of elections in the Donbas before having resolved the security issues determined by the Minsk Agreements).

At the same time, Russia will continue blocking the process of implementation of the previous agreements on the withdrawal of troops from the contact line (in particular, in the area near the village of Stanytsya Luhanska) and can also carry out new provocative attacks on settlements in the occupied territories. All this will be accompanied by intensified political and media campaign with accusing Ukraine of “reluctance to fulfill the Minsk Agreements” and “provoking tensions in the conflict zone”.

Apart from this, according to various sources, in the nearest future, Russia may launch a scenario to destabilize the situation in most regions of Ukraine. This absolutely coincides with previous estimates of the Independent Analytical Centre for Geopolitical Studies “Borysfen Intel”, which has already forecasted such Moscow’s actions aimed at rapid resolving the “Ukrainian” issue for the Kremlin’s favor. The above-mentioned is becoming increasingly important for V. Putin’s regime due to the critical growth of negative consequences of Western sanctions against the Russian Federation.

 

www.reliablecounter.com

Схожі публікації