LAST WEEK’S KEY FACTORS AND MAIN TRENDS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITUATION AROUND UKRAINE
(November 21-27, 2016)
I. Major-Profile Events in the Development of the Situation around Ukraine
The most resonant event in the development of the situation in Ukraine and around it was the third anniversary of the “Revolution of Dignity” in our Country marked on 21 November, 2016, which caused a wide reaction in the world. It showed that the world community’s great attention to Ukraine is still there and confirmed the fundamentally different attitudes to our Country from the West and Russia.
Thus, the leaderships of the EU and major Western countries spoke positively about the democratic reforms in Ukraine and our State’s actions to implement the clear course of its European and Euro-Atlantic integration. According to the President of the European Commission J. Juncker, within the last three years Ukraine has made more progress than within the previous 20 years. At the same time, he expressed strong views on support for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, non-recognition of the “lawfulness” of Russia’s annexation of the Crimea, and condemned V. Putin’s regime’s actions against our Country.
Completely opposite were the estimates and comments by the Russian Federation’s leadership. In particular, in an interview with the American film director O. Stone for the film “Ukraine in the Fire” (shot by Moscow’s order, the opening night was scheduled for 21 November, 2016) Russian President V. Putin accused the United States and the EU of “…organizing a coup in Ukraine, which led to the outbreak of the civil war in its territory”, assessed the Crimea’s joining the Russian Federation as”…the will of the Peninsula’s population, which was realized in a peaceful and democratic way”, and called Moscow’s actions to deploy strike weapons systems on the Western direction — ”…a response to the build-up of NATO’s military presence in Eastern Europe”.
The above-mentioned Russian position was confirmed and supported by the actions of the followers of V. Putin — Russian Nazis, who burned the Ukrainian flag near the Ukrainian National Cultural Center in Moscow.
An important factor of influence on Ukraine’s interests remained the process of the new US leadership’s determining the main directions of the country’s policy. Thus, on 22 November, 2016, the US President-Elect D. Trump unveiled the action plan for the first 100 days of his presidency. In the domestic policy, such plans repeat D. Trump’s election program and include creation of new jobs and strengthening of security in the country due to: limiting the access of foreign goods to the US market; cancelling the quotas on oil and gas production in the US territory; improving the protection of the cyberspace; introduction of more strict visa rules.
At the same time, D. Trump has demonstrated a number of changes in his views on the USA’s foreign policy. In particular, he has confirmed his intention to improve relations with Russia, but gave up the idea of the “reset” (i.e. of sharp changes of the US policy towards Russia, as it was done by B. Obama after he came to power in 2008). However, according to the President of the European Council D. Tusk, during his telephone conversation with D. Trump, the new US President expressed his intention to maintain the sanctions against Russia until Moscow has fulfilled the Minsk Agreements.
In this regard, remarkable is the decrease in the degree of Moscow’s “euphoria” on the occasion of D. Trumps having been elected US President. Thus, according to V. Putin, “…between the pre-election rhetoric and actual policy there is always a great difference, practically in all countries”. At this, Russia’s a new problem is D. Trump’s plans to increase the volume in production of hydrocarbons in the USA. This will certainly lead to a further drop in world oil and gas prices as well as to increased competition to Russian energy carriers in the European market.
In general, the above-mentioned circumstances have resulted in preservation of the active confrontation between Russia and the United States, NATO, the EU.
II. Russia’s Armed Aggression against Ukraine
Putin’s regime continued its pressure on Ukraine in order to force our State to carry out Russia’s conditions of the “settlement” of the conflict in the Donbas, and made attempts to discredit Ukraine in the eyes of the international community and, in particular, of the new US leadership.
2.1. The East of Ukraine (The ATO Zone)
November 23, 2016, the regular meeting of the Trilateral Contact Group took place in Minsk. They discussed the conditions of holding elections in the occupied territories of Ukraine, issues of implementation of the previous decisions on the withdrawal of the troops from the front line, as well as the issue of the exchange of prisoners of war. An agreement was reached on the possibility of the beginning of the withdrawal of forces near the village of Stanytsya Luhanska and opening of the check point “Zolote” in Luhansk region in case of termination of shelling in those areas. Other issues remained unresolved.
During the talks, the Russian side again tried to impose on Ukraine the so-called “Steinmeier’s formula”, which provides for the Verkhovna Rada’s adoption of amendments to the Constitution to grant special status to the occupied territories for the electoral period, simultaneously with which Russia should withdraw its troops and military equipment from the Donbas (which is totally unrealistic). In turn, Ukraine tied the further implementation of the framework decision on the disengagement of forces to the demilitarization of Debaltsevo (according to the Minsk Agreements it must be under the control of Ukraine).
As usual, during the meeting of the Tripartite Contact Group, Russia intensified shelling in the conflict zone to more than 40 attacks per day. Besides, the activity of sabotage and reconnaissance groups and snipers’ fire continued.
Against this background, continued marauding actions of the occupying authorities of the self-proclaimed republics to destroy the industrial infrastructure in their territory. Thus, referring to the absence of orders and financial assistance from the leadership of the “LPR” and Russia, the temporary administration of the production company “Stakhanov Railway Car Building Works” handed over to scrap the machines and other equipment of the enterprise.
2.2. The Crimean Peninsula
The Russian Federation’s leadership continued activities to discredit Ukraine by accusing our Country of “subversive activities against the Crimea”. In particular, on 22 November, 2016, at the UN Security Council, Russia accused Ukraine of “having stopped supplying the Crimea with water, which threatens with deterioration of the humanitarian situation and the catastrophe in the Peninsula”. Besides, Russia conducted yet another provocation against Ukraine in terms of the FSB’s “detention” of new Ukrainian “saboteurs” and “spies”, as well as allegations about the “illegal (in V. Putin’s words — “treacherous”) detention by the State Security Service of Ukraine of two Crimean military servicemen” in the Ukrainian territory.
At the same time, Moscow continued activities to militarize the Crimea and to recruit the population of the Peninsula into the Russian Federation’s Armed Forces (which is contrary to international law in respect of residents of the occupied territories and has already been condemned by the United Nations and the Hague Tribunal). Thus, last week in Kerch there was an action “Contract Service Is Your Choice”, during which were demonstrated the advanced weapons systems stationed in the Crimean Peninsula, including S-400 Air Defense Missile Weapon System and “Pantsir-S1” Air Defense Missile-Gun System. Besides, on combat duty near Balaklava was the anti-ship silo-based operational-tactical missile complex, “…which used to be in service in the Armed Forces of Ukraine” (apparently meaning the Coastal Silo-Based Anti-Missile System “Bastion”).
Against the background of the above-mentioned developments, Russia continued its efforts to intimidate the population of the Crimea and of the self-proclaimed republics in the Donbas by accusing our State of the intention “to regain control over the lost territories with the help of force”. Exactly so Moscow considered the proposal of the President of Croatia, Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovic to share with Ukraine the Croatian experience of reintegration of the country (in 1995, after a long conflict, Croatia during the Operation “Storm” liquidated the inspired Serbia separatist formations on its territory, the so-called “Serbian Krajinas“).
2.3. Other Aspects of the Russian Federation’s Actions against Ukraine and the West
In response to the USA and NATO’s pressure — Russia continued actions to build up missile weapons in the western regions of the country. Thus, according to the statement of the Head of the Defense Committee in the Federation Council of Russia V. Ozerov, the S-400 Surface-to-Air Missile Systems, delivered to Kaliningrad region of the Russian Federation in September 2016, have already been deployed near NATO’s borders.
At the same time V. Ozerov admitted Russia’s deployment in Kaliningrad region of “Iskander-M” Operational-Tactical Missile Systems “able to destroy Air and Missile Defense Systems of the enemy”. Besides, according to him, Russia continues to develop new missile systems of the “surface-to-air” and “air-land” classes, “capable of overcoming the US/NATO Air and Missile Defense Systems in Europe”.
Apart from this, as part of the Baltic Fleet of the Russian Federation in Kaliningrad region was deployed a Battery of the “Bastion” Coastal Missile System (with a range of 120 to 500 km /depending on the type of the rocket/). Before that, in September 2016, the RF Baltic Fleet put into service the “Bal” Coastal Missile System (with a range of 120 to 260 km /depending on the type of the rocket/).
There are also signs of Russia’s increasing military activity on the Belarusian direction. According to the Belarusian “Center for Strategic and Foreign Policy Studies,” the applications of the Defense Ministry for railway transportation of military supplies to Belarus for 2017 are significantly higher than such orders for 2015 (33 times) and for 2016 (83 times), respectively. The experts see the above-mentioned as Russia’s preparations for the “Zapad-2017” Russian-Belarusian SCPE. However, they do not exclude the plans of Moscow’s attacking Ukraine from the North and of the aggression against the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and the Baltic states. The exactly same “Zapad-2013” was held by Russia before its armed aggression against Ukraine. At this, the scale, and other options of the “Zapad-2013” SCPE, including the operational structure of forces, were absolutely similar to the actual actions of the Russian troops in Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine in the spring of 2014.
III. Ukraine, International Organizations and Leading Western Countries
In response to Russia’s demonstration of force to the West, the United States, NATO and the EU have stepped up the rigidity of the rhetoric in relation to the regime of V. Putin, and increased the decisiveness and activity of their actions to curb Moscow in the military sphere.
3.1. International Organizations
The European Union. One of the main directions of the EU’s activity was strengthening Europe’s security in the face of the growing level of threats from the Russian Federation and Islamic extremism, and the possibility the new US administration’s lesser attention to European problems. November 23, 2016, the European Parliament approved a plan to implement the new Strategy of the European Security and Defense Policy, adopted by the Foreign Ministers of the EU member states.
Special attention was paid by the EU to improving information security in Europe. November 23, 2016, the European Parliament adopted a Resolution on countering Russia’s and the Islamists’ propaganda, which marked the EU’s turning to a new information policy. The Resolution recognizes the fact of the Kremlin’s using a wide range of information tools to influence the EU (including media, research centers and special funds), as well as providing financial support for the anti-European forces. This EU’s step caused “hysterical” reaction of Moscow, which faced the prospect of losing one of the most effective means to promote its interests in Europe.
The development of relations between the European Union and Ukraine continues. November 24, 2016, the results of the EU-Ukraine summit are as follows: an agreement was reached to increase the quota for export of Ukrainian goods to the European Union; a memorandum was signed on cooperation between Ukraine and the EU in the energy sphere (confirms the leading role of Ukraine in the transit of Russian gas to Europe), as well as a decision was made on the allocation by the European Commission of the financial aid to Ukraine in the amount of 120 million Euros (of which — 16 million Euros — on the struggle against corruption and 104 million Euros — for the reform of the civil service).
At the same time, the leadership of the European Union expressed its intention to maintain sanctions against Russia. The decision on this matter can be adopted by the EU Council on 15 December, 2016.
Implementation of the plans to simplify the visa regime between the EU and Ukraine was postponed yet again — until they agree on the mechanism for visa restrictions in case of a crisis situation in our Country.
NATO. The situation around Ukraine remained in the focus of the Alliance’s attention. Thus, the Ukrainian question became one of the central topics on the agenda of the 62nd annual Session of the Parliamentary Assembly (PA) of NATO on the 19th–21st November 2016 in Turkey. The event was attended by Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, A. Parubiy, who spoke on “Two Wars in Ukraine: Protection of the Independence and Introduction of Real Reforms”, and provided clear evidence of Russia’s military invasion in the Donbas.
During the Session, NATO Secretary General J. Stoltenberg stressed the firmness of the Alliance’s intentions to continue strong support for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, and to provide comprehensive assistance to our State. Besides, according to J. Stoltenberg, the North Atlantic Alliance will never recognize the “legitimacy” of Russia’s annexation of the Crimea. In turn, President of Turkey R. Erdogan admitted Moscow’s violations of the rights of the Crimean Tatars and expressed his intention to prohibit the visits of Turkish ships into the Crimean ports.
As a result of the Session, was adopted a Resolution “Support for the Post-Warsaw Strategy of Defense and Deterrence,” which in fact recognized Russia’s armed aggression against Ukraine. At this, the Putin regime’s actions were described as “the main factor of undermining the security and stability in the world”. The new President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly was elected coordinator of Italy’s inter-parliamentary relations with Ukraine, P. Alli, who is confident supporter of our State.
However, NATO’s leaders expressed concern about Russia’s actions for the deployment of attack weapons systems and called it a continuation of the policy of “the Putin regime’s aggressive militarism”. In this context, illustrative was the Alliance’s decision to terminate the operation “Ocean Shield” aimed at fighting piracy of Somalia and to redeploy the forces involved into the Black Sea, the Baltic Sea and the Mediterranean Sea, due to “the need for NATO’s responding to global changes in the security situation in the world”.
Within the framework of the response to the increasing threat from Russia, were intensified the actions of NATO Member countries and NATO Partner countries in the military sphere. In particular, the Alliance’s fighters performing air patrol tasks in the Baltic region, began to escort all Russian military aircraft, including those carrying out planned flights on the specified routes.
At the same time, in November 2016 was launched a series of NATO’s Joint Forces’ exercises, including: in Poland as part of the NATO’s Multinational Corps “North-East” (headquarters in Szczecin) — “Compact Eagle-2016.”; in Lithuania — “Iron Sword-2016”, as well as in Montenegro and Georgia.
Russia’s increased military activity and provocations cause concern also in neutral countries of the Baltic region. For example, Sweden is going to demothball and deploy on the island of Gotland the coastal anti-ship missile systems “Saab Robots System 15”, decommissioned in 2000.
In turn, Finland and a number of NATO and the EU member countries consider the establishment of an international center in Helsinki to study and counter Russia’s and Islamic extremists’ “hybrid” wars.
At the same time there is a growing possibility of Finland‘s military response to threats from Moscow. In particular, on 23 November 2016, in the Gulf of Finland there began military exercises of the country’s Navy — MEPU-16 with the participation of 2.7 thousand military servicemen and 30 warships and support vessels.
3.2. Leading Western Countries
The USA. V. Putin’s regime’s aggressive anti-Western policy causes an adequate reaction of the United States, and leads to further aggravation of the confrontation between the two countries. According to the Speaker of the US Department of State J. Kirby, to date, US-Russian relations are in a critical state. The reason for this is the sharp differences of the parties over Ukraine and Syria, as well as the intensification of Russia’s attacks on US computer networks. In this context, J. Kirby reconfirmed the principled position of the United States which will never recognize the “legitimacy” of Russia’s annexation of the Ukrainian Crimea.
Besides, the US Department of State has accused Russia of deliberate destabilizing of the situation in Europe by building up Russian troops, including the deployment of attack weapons systems near NATO and the EU’s borders. At this they stressed the absence of any objective justification for such actions of Moscow.
The United States and NATO have also expressed great concerns about Russia’s actions in Syria, which lead to massive civilian casualties in Aleppo and destruction of civilian infrastructure.
Germany. Within the framework of the beginning of the election campaign in the country on 20 November, 2016, Federal Chancellor of Germany A. Merkel has officially confirmed her intention to run for a fourth term. According to sociological researches, after the fall of A. Merkel’s rating in 2015 in connection with the “migration” crisis in the EU, now she has restored her position. For example, 55 % of the citizens of the country are for the extension of her term as head of the German government.
Against this background, the representatives of the opposition Left Party of Germany in the Parliament of the FRG have expressed the position of the Left over the illegality of the annexation of the Crimea by Russia (earlier a number of Deputies from the Left Party in German local parliaments were in favor of lifting the sanctions from Russia and recognizing “the Crimean Peninsula’s belonging to Russia”).
IV. Other Important Trends and Developments that Affect Ukraine’s National Interests
Russia. The Russian Federation’s leadership continues active measures to conceal the real state of affairs in the country. In particular, during the forum of the “All-Russian People’s Front” on 22 November, 2016, President V. Putin assured the Russian public about “Russia’s getting out of the crisis, as well as restoration of the positive dynamics of development of its economy”. These statements of the Russian President caused extensive comments of independent Russian experts, who provide very different assessments of the economic situation in Russia.
Thus, according to representatives of the Institute of Economic Forecasting of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the new three-year budget will completely ruin Russia’s economy. The reason for this is called the “mobilization nature of the financial instrument”, which provides for significant limitation of expenses to support the economic development of the country, as well as an increase in taxes for households and businesses.
In turn, this creates conditions for acceleration of the so-called stagnation spiral which had appeared in the Russian economy before 2014. In particular, the manifestation of this is the fall of the rate of growth of agriculture of the Russian Federation from 5.8 % in 2013 to 3 % in 2016, despite the limited access of western food products to the Russian market.
Moldova. The new President of Moldova I. Dodon has confirmed the plans for the country’s rapprochement with Russia and the Eurasian Economic Union (EurAsEC). Thus, according to him, in the first phase they are going to sign a memorandum of cooperation with the EurAsEC. However, despite his previous statements, I. Dodon spoke for the continuation of cooperation between Moldova and the European Union within the framework of the Association Agreement with the EU. By this, he actually announced his intention to lead the so-called multi-vector policy, which was explained by sharp differences of political views of the population of different regions of the country.
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
As expected, the results of the presidential elections in the USA, Moldova and Bulgaria were not unambiguously positive for the Putin regime from the point of view of fundamental changing of the positions of these countries in favor of the Russian Federation. Evidence of this is the first statements of the new leaders of the USA and Moldova, which are pretty much different from their pre-election promises. This undermines Moscow’s hopes for the abolition of the USA’s (and EU’s) quick lifting of sanctions against Russia, for strengthening Russia’s positions in the post-Soviet space and for obtaining additional leverage of pressure on Ukraine with the help of Moldova.
In view of the above-mentioned circumstances, it is necessary to expect activization of Russia’s actions to prevent the consolidation of this tendency. To this end, Moscow could offer the United States a number of compromises in exchange for Washington’s support for the Russian position on Ukraine, including cancellation of counter-sanctions and increased access of American companies to the Russian market, as well as termination of Russia’s aid to B. Assad’s regime in Syria. Along with this, V. Putin’s regime will use a combined policy of pressure and preferences towards Moldova and Bulgaria. In the Moldovan case, this will involve manipulating the issues of economic and financial assistance to Moldova and letting its products to Russia, as well as the development of the situation around Trans-Dniester. In the Bulgarian case — there will be manipulating the issues of policy of prices for Russian energy carriers for the country and letting its products to Russia.
Besides, Russia will intensify its intervention in electoral processes in other European countries and the former Soviet republics, especially in the preparation of the early parliamentary elections in Macedonia, as well as the repeated presidential elections in Austria and the early presidential elections in Uzbekistan in December 2016. In particular, the proof of this is the Russia’s information support of the candidate for the post of President of Austria from the far-right Freedom Party N. Hofer and of the oppositional “Social Democratic Union” in Macedonia.
5.2. Prospects for the Development of Events in the Conflict Zones of Ukraine
Taking into consideration the virtual absence of positive changes in the preparation of the “road map” for implementation of the Minsk Agreements, Germany and France have initiated the next meeting of the “Normandy Four” at the level of Foreign Ministers, which is tentatively scheduled for November 29, 2016. Caring only about its own interests, Moscow will use this meeting to impose a version of “settlement” of the conflict in the Donbas on the basis of “Steinmeier’s Formula”.
Taking into consideration the previous experience, the preparation of the meeting will be accompanied by increased Russia’s pressure on Ukraine and its Western allies with a view to encourage them to adopt the Russian version of the implementation of the peace plan. As before, the basic form of such pressure will be intensification of the armed conflict in the Donbas, which is already happening.
At this, Moscow will make efforts to assure the western countries and, in particular, the new US administration about “irresponsibility of Ukraine”, which allegedly “deliberately disrupts the implementation of the Minsk Agreements.” The above-mentioned will be used by the regime of V. Putin as another “argument” to persuade D. Trump that there is a “need to change the USA’s attitude to Ukraine and Russia”.
At the same time, such actions of Moscow will pose a real threat to disrupt the agreements reached at the end of the meeting by the leaders of the “Normandy Four” in Berlin on the 19th–20th of November 2016, and at the meeting of the Trilateral Contact Group on 23 November 2016.
Instead of Conclusions
In general, the above-mentioned circumstances mark the beginning of a new stage of deterioration of relations between Russia and the West. The reason for this is the failure of Putin’s regime’s expectations on the possibility of rapid changes in US and the EU’s policy with regard to Russia, including in terms of lifting the sanctions over the “Ukrainian” issue. This problem is particularly relevant for Moscow in the situation of further significant deterioration of the Russian economy.
In this situation, V. Putin’s regime is increasing the pressure on the United States, NATO and the EU by demonstrating military force. In turn, this increases the threat of a large-scale military conflict between Russia and the West. Thus, according to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Germany F. Steinmeier, due to Russia’s annexation of the Ukrainian Crimea and the “hybrid” war in the Donbas, in Europe again, there is much tension around the issue of war and peace in Europe.