Week’s News Express Analysis № 28/12

 

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

(December 05–11, 2016)

 

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

Against the background of the failure of the Putin regime’s attempts to reach a compromise with the West on the Ukrainian issue, last week the confrontation between Russia and the United States, NATO and the EU over Syria escalated again. Thus, on 5 December 2016, Russia blocked adoption by the UN Security Council of the resolution on a ceasefire in Aleppo, proposed by France. At this, in response to criticism of Russia from the United States, France and Great Britain, Moscow accused Western countries of “supporting fighters of the so-called moderate opposition forces in Syria, which hit the Russian field hospital near the city of Aleppo” (two nurses were killed and one military serviceman was wounded).

This was actually Russia’s excuse for its declining the French draft of the UN Security Council’s resolution. However, taking into consideration the interests of Putin’s regime, the real aim of such Moscow’s step was to prevent the possibility of the cessation of hostilities in the city of Aleppo and thus to secure the success of the Syrian government forces in taking control of the eastern part of the city. According to some estimates, taking into account the importance of this issue for the Kremlin, as well as the experience of Russia’s Armed Forces and its puppets’ provocative shelling of civilian settlements in the Donbas, the hospital in Syria could have been struck in the same way, and gave Russia grounds to block the UN Security Council’s decisions on the city of Aleppo.

Despite this, Western countries and international organizations continued pressure on Russia on the issue of ending the violence in the Syrian territory. Thus, on 7 December 2016, the EU, NATO, USA, Canada, UK, France, Germany and Italy sent an appeal to the UN Secretary General with a call to bring to justice those responsible for war crimes in Syria, and expressed willingness to introduce their own sanctions against them. In turn, December 8, 2016, current US President B. Obama lifted restrictions on arms supplies “…to foreign armed forces, irregular forces, groups and individuals assisting the US military operations in Syria” (i.e., actually to the moderate opposition).

All this has created a threat of stronger Western sanctions against Russia, and of the increase in the Russian troops’ losses in Syria, which are already quite significant. In particular December 5, 2016, while landing on the aircraft carrier “Admiral Kuznetsov”, Su-33 fighter crashed (second disaster after the ship’s arrival in the Mediterranean Sea; November 14, 2016, MiG-29K fighter fell into the sea). Due to this, and because of the failure of the barriers, flying from the ship has been stopped, and part of the aviation group has been relocated to the Hmeymim Russian air base in Syria). Besides, as a result of the shelling, was killed the Russian Federation’s Military Adviser in Syria Colonel R. Galitsky — the Commander of the 5th Tank Brigade (Buryatia), who had taken part in the fighting in the Donbas, and is now used to reinforce the Group of Russian Forces in the North of the Crimea (on rotation).

In view of the above-mentioned circumstances, the Russian leadership has returned to the tactics of the so-called humanitarian pauses for the “civilians to exit from the combat zone”. However, this has not changed the West’s attitude to V. Putin’s regime. Thus, on 7 December, 2016, during the plenary session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg was adopted a resolution on the possibility of lifting the sanctions against Russia only when it has fulfilled the Minsk Agreements and has returned the Crimea to Ukraine.

A similar position was demonstrated by the North-Atlantic Alliance at the meeting of the NATO-Ukraine Commission on 7 December, 2016 in Brussels. NATO Secretary General J. Stoltenberg acknowledged strengthening of the armed conflict in the Donbas, and put on Russia the responsibility for maintaining the tension in the conflict zone. With this in mind, J. Stoltenberg stressed the need to continue political and economic sanctions against Russia until Moscow’s full implementation of the Minsk Agreements.

However, NATO leaders affirmed the importance of Ukraine as of one of the fundamental priorities of the Alliance. That is why, J. Stoltenberg expressed NATO’s intention to continue implementation of the Comprehensive Assistance Package for Ukraine, adopted during the Warsaw summit of the Alliance in July this year.

NATO has also approved our State’s transition to a new form of cooperation with NATO within the framework of the preparation and implementation of the annual national program for bringing Ukraine’s security and defense sector up to the standards of the Alliance. The program covers all aspects of the Comprehensive Assistance Package for Ukraine, has a clearly determined character and is being developed in close cooperation with the Alliance.

Russia’s armed aggression against Ukraine and Moscow’s actions in Syria became major issues on the agenda of the 23rd Session of the Council of OSCE Foreign Ministries on 8-9 December 2016, in Hamburg (Germany). In this part of the Western countries and the Russian Federation expressed a fundamentally different positions on these issues.

Thus, the current Head of the OSCE, Foreign Minister of Germany F. Steinmeier, US Secretary of State J. Kerry, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs F. Mogherini, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Poland B. Waszczykowski and other Western politicians have condemned Russia’s actions in Ukraine and Syria, acknowledged the continuing tension in the Donbas and the critical aggravation of the humanitarian crisis in the Syrian territory, and expressed the need for the continuation of sanctions against V. Putin’s regime until it changes its policy. Similar positions were demonstrated also in a separate meeting on the issues of security in the Donbas, with the participation of the Foreign Ministers of Ukraine P. Klimkin and of the Federal Republic of Germany F. Steinmeier.

In contrast to this, the Russian Foreign Minister S. Lavrov denied the obvious facts of Moscow’s intervention in the conflict in the East of Ukraine, and the presence of Russian troops in the Donbas, accused Ukraine of lingering with the adoption of the “road map” of implementation of the Minsk Agreements, and stressed that Ukraine needs to recognize “the DPR” and “LPR” and to start direct negotiations with them as a basis for resolving the conflict. Besides, he stressed the “unreality of complete ceasefire in the Donbas” and, accordingly, the “impossibility of implementation of the Ukrainian approach, providing for fulfillment of political provisions of the peace plan only after solving all the problems in the security sphere”.

Given these differences, the Russian Federation has blocked the adoption of most of the documents and the Declaration of the OSCE Council of Ministers on the situation around Ukraine.

In turn, December 8, 2016, the US Senate passed the defense budget for 2017, providing for the allocation of 4.3 billion US dollars to contain Russia. Of these, 350 million US dollars are intended to provide assistance to Ukraine in the military sphere. On the same day, 27 US Senators issued a joint appeal to US President-Elect D. Trump to continue the sanctions against Russia due to Moscow’s aggressive actions against Ukraine, and to strengthen political, economic and military assistance to Ukraine.

Against this background, December 9, 2016, the UN General Assembly, at the initiative of Canada, adopted a resolution demanding an immediate cease-fire in Syria and ensuring delivery of humanitarian aid into the most affected areas. As usual, Russia once again voted against.

 

II. Russia’s Armed Aggression against Ukraine

2.1. The East of Ukraine (The ATO zone)

Despite the pressure from the West, Russia continues its targeted footdragging tactics in the process of resolving the situation in the Donbas. Evidence of such intentions of Moscow became a regular meeting of the Trilateral Contact Group (TCG) in Minsk on 7 December, 2016. Due to the unacceptable for Ukraine positions of representatives of the “DPR” and “LPR”, discussion of the results of major issues on the agenda (which concerned the implementation of the agreements on disengagement of the forces of the parties, opening of the border-crossing checkpoint near Zolote, as well as the release of hostages and prisoners of war) ended actually without results. The only agreement achieved was that on the development of a mechanism of restoration of water supply in Luhansk region.

On the eve of the meeting in Minsk, Russian Federation’s Foreign Minister S. Lavrov and presidential adviser Russia, plenipotentiary representative of the Russian Federation in the Contact Group on Ukraine B. Gryzlov once again expressed Moscow’s position on the possibility of achieving peace in the Donbas only if Ukraine agrees to implement the so-called Steinmeier’s formula and adopts a law on amnesty for militants without any preconditions (before January 6, 2017). In turn, Ukraine reaffirmed its demands about the need for taking as a basis for the withdrawal of the troops the line defined by the Memorandum of 19 September 2014, and for demilitarization of Debaltsevo.

At the same time, within the framework of Russia’s policy of pressure on Ukraine, the Russian-terrorist forces continued provocative shelling of the positions of Ukrainian troops and civilian settlements with an average intensity of more than 30 attacks a day. The enemy’s greatest activity was observed in the direction of Mariupol.

 

2.2. The Crimean Peninsula

Against the background of the worsening economic situation in the Crimea, the Russian leadership shows “Russia’s increased attention to the problems of the Crimean Peninsula”. In particular, after the reduction in July of this year of the volume of funding the “Federal Target Program of Development of the Crimea and Sevastopol until 2020” because of the deficit of the state budget of the Russian Federation, Moscow expresses intentions to allocate additional funds for its implementation. At this, it uses Russia’s usual practice of juggling with facts. For example, while the financing of the program was reduced by 3.5 billion rubles, the alleged “increase” in funding is only 769 million rubles.

Along with this, V. Putin’s regime continues actions to create the impression of “international recognition of the Crimea’s belonging to Russia” and to attract foreign funding to the development of the Crimean economy. To this end, at the invitation of Moscow, the Crimean Peninsula is going to be visited by a group of German “businessmen and investors”.

 

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

The determination of the EU and US positions on the sanctions policy toward Russia, B. Obama’s decision to lift the restrictions on the supply of weapons to the moderate opposition in Syria, as well as the adoption by the US Congress of the plans to allocate funds for providing assistance to Ukraine in the military sphere have caused the Putin regime’s extremely nervous reaction. Thus, according to statements by representatives of the Russian leadership, the above-mentioned “undermines the prospects of establishing relations between the West and Russia”, “enhances the threats to Russian troops in Syria” and “creates the risk of further escalation of the conflict in the Syrian territory and of increasing instability in the East of Ukraine”.

In view of the these circumstances, Moscow continues actions to intimidate the West by building up the attack capacity of the Russian Armed Forces. Thus, on 5 December 2016, Russian President V. Putin held the Russian Security Council’s visiting meeting on the base of the State Rocket Center named after Makeyev (the main designer and manufacturer of strategic missile systems) in the city of Miass, Chelyabinsk region. Behind closed door were discussed the issues of strengthening the strategic nuclear forces of the country, in particular the prospects of making operational new intercontinental ballistic missiles RS-28 “Sarmat” (intended to replace ICBM R-36M “Voyevoda” of Ukrainian design), and plans to create missile systems for submarines of the fifth generation.

Against this background, in order to improve the effectiveness of Russia’s information policy, as one of the main tools of Moscow’s “hybrid” war and counteracting the processes of destabilization in the country (on the model of the “Arab” or “Russian” “Spring”), on 5 December 5, 2016, President of the Russian Federation V. Putin approved a new Information Security Doctrine of the Russian Federation.

According to the document, the main objectives of the Russian Federation’s actions in the information sphere are as follows: strategic deterrence and prevention of military conflicts that can arise when using information technologies; establishing a sustainable system of equal strategic partnership and non-contentious inter-state relations in the information space; countering information and psychological influence from other countries; improvement of the system of information security of the Russian Armed Forces. At this, the Russian Federation impudently accuses Western countries of carrying out subversive activities against it and discriminating Russian media.

In general, this document is yet another manifestation of the cynicism and treacherousness of Russia’s policy, which assigns different countries its own aggressive actions in the information sphere. Besides, the new Information Security Doctrine of the Russian Federation is a response to West’s latest steps in the information confrontation with Russia, namely: the adoption by the US Congress of the law on strengthening the struggle against the Kremlin’s hidden influence, and the adoption by the European Parliament of the resolution on combating Moscow’s information policy.

 

III. Ukraine, International Organizations and Leading Western Countries

3.1. International Organizations

NATO and the EU. As part of the follow-up to the Warsaw Summit of the Alliance (July 8-9, 2016), NATO and the EU have been taking consistent steps to unite the efforts of the two Organizations in confronting threats from Russia. On 6 December 2016, the President of the European Council, President of the European Commission and the NATO Secretary General signed a joint statement on deepening cooperation between the European and the North-Atlantic Alliances in the spheres of development of defense capabilities, countering “hybrid” wars and protection of cyberspace.

In particular, it is planned to strengthen cooperation on NATO and EU’s joint planning, development and production of weapons, creating a “European Centre for Counteracting Hybrid Threats”, as well as joint exercises for crisis response “Crisis Management Exercise 2017” and “Multi-Layer Crisis Management Exercise 2018”. Besides, the United States, NATO and the EU will provide assistance to strengthen the capacity of partner countries, especially of Ukraine. At this, the events to promote reform Ukraine’s defense sector will continue.

Against this background, there are positive developments in the process of solving the problem of simplification of the EU’s visa regime with Ukraine. Thus, on 7 December 2016, representatives of the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council of Europe reached an agreement on the details of the mechanism of resumption of visa restrictions with the EU partner countries in case of crisis situations on their territory (the definition of such a mechanism was the main problem in the opening of European borders for Ukraine). The adoption of this decision is scheduled for the next session of the European Parliament — approximately in the middle of December 2016.

 

3.2. Leading Western Countries

The USA. US President-Elect D. Trump continues selecting candidates for key positions in his new administration from among opponents of Russia. For example, for the post of US Secretary of Defense was proposed a professional military servicemen, General J. Mattis, who has quite a fundamental position of not perceiving V. Putin’s regime’s actions. Thus, J. Mattis has clearly defined these actions of Moscow as an armed aggression against Ukraine and called them a threat to the security of Europe and American allies in NATO. Based on this, he is in favor of strengthening the USA’s struggle against Russia’s aggressive policy. While proposing J. Mattis’ candidature for the post of US Secretary of Defense, D. Trump separately stressed the need to support Ukraine. According to him, “now Ukraine needs this support more than ever”.

The United States’ Parliament also has a firm position regarding Russia. In particular, on December 8, 2016, the House of Representatives of the Congress began its consideration of the bill on establishment of a special commission to investigate Russia’s attempts to influence the results of the presidential elections in the United States. The Commission will have an independent status and will include representatives of the US Republican and Democratic parties.

Germany. As a result of the congress of the Christian Democratic Union, on 6 December, 2016, A. Merkel was elected the leader of the CDU for the ninth time. This means she has received the Party’s official support which allows her to participate in the election campaign in preparation for the parliamentary elections in the country (20 November A. Merkel announced about her plans for the fourth time to run for the post of Chancellor of Germany).

 

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

Russia. During a meeting with senior officers of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation on 7 December, 2016 on the occasion of their having been appointed to new posts, Russia’s President V. Putin specified the tasks of uniformed services of the country in the new geopolitical situation around the Russian Federation. In particular, among those tasks he determined as follows:

Ministry of Defense — raising the level of combat training, as well as continuation of measures for reform of the Armed Forces and their re-equipment based on the experience of combat actions in Syria;

FSB — continuation of the aggressive struggle against terrorist and other threats to national security (he praised FSB’s successful actions in securing of the parliamentary elections in September, 2016).

MIA — strengthening counteracting crime and corruption, as well as improving road safety;

Prosecutor’s Office — focusing on ensuring the rule of law in the social sphere, particularly on the issue of payment of salaries;

Russia’s National Guard — protection of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation and the fight against extremism;

Foreign Intelligence Service — tracking changes in the international situation, as well as in the USA, NATO and the EU’s policy of putting pressure on Russia.

Against this background, the Russian Federation’s leadership continued measures to prevent threats to its powers in case of aggravation of the socio-political and socio-economic situation in the country. In particular, the draft laws on empowerment of the Russian National Guard (including on breaking-up unsanctioned rallies and demonstrations) were presented at the session of the State Duma of the Russian Federation last week.

Austria. December 4, 2016, by the results of the presidential elections in Austria, the winner is the former leader of the “Green” Party A. Van der Bellen, who advocates deepening and enlargement of the European integration, supports the territorial integrity of Ukraine, and recognizes the fact of Russia’s armed aggression against our country. However, the election results also showed fairly strong positions of the right-wing forces that support Putin’s regime. Thus, the candidate from the force N. Hofer scored 46% of the vote.

Uzbekistan. On the same day, the early presidential election was held in Uzbekistan, due to the death in September of this year of President I. Karimov. The Prime Minister of Uzbekistan, the acting head of the country S. Mirziyaev was an expected winner. The new President of Uzbekistan is a supporter of the country’s non-joining any military-political blocs and not letting any foreign military bases to Uzbekistan’s territory. In the domestic sphere S. Mirzijaev will focus his efforts on improving the conditions for economic development of the country, particularly in terms of creating a favorable investment climate, liberalization of the foreign exchange market, as well as strengthening the fight against corruption. At the same time, S. Mirzijaev has close ties with Russian businesses, which will affect his position. Thus, S. Mirziyaev’s very first call in the role of the new President of Uzbekistan was to V. Putin.

Moldova. As expected, the election of I. Dodon the President of Moldova created preconditions for the emergence of another political crisis in the country. Thus, the pro-Western forces in the Parliament of Moldova presented a draft law on the limitation of powers of the President of the Moldovan state. In response, I. Dodon announced his intention to appeal such actions to the Constitutional Court, as well as to hold a referendum to declare early parliamentary elections.

 

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

Taking into consideration Russia’s inability to provide rapid achievement of its goals regarding Ukraine by direct pressure on it, and the failure of attempts to destabilize the situation in our country, the Russian Federation ‘s leadership is changing the strategy and tactics of its actions on the Ukrainian direction. In particular, this was illustrated by V. Putin’s statement that “Moscow is ready to restore cooperation with Ukraine”, which was enshrined also in the new Concept of the Russian Federation’s Foreign Policy.

With the help of the above-mentioned, Putin’s regime is trying to improve Russia’s image and to change the mood of the Ukrainian society by demonstrating the “advantages” of friendly relations with Russia as compared with Ukraine’s course towards European integration. In this regard, it is necessary to expect active information-propaganda campaign of the Russian Federation with the evidence of these “advantages” on the example of “positive effects” of the election the Kremlin’s protege — I. Dodon President of Moldova (in particular with regard to the opening of the Russian market for Moldovan goods).

At the same time, attention will be focused on the “futility of Ukraine’s European aspirations” on the example of delaying the ratification process of the Association Agreement of Ukraine with the European Union, and the decision on the simplification of visa regime for Ukrainian citizens. Besides, against the background of the formation of a “positive” image of V. Putin’s regime, Russia will step up efforts to discredit the current leadership of our State, in particular through the organization of resonant political scandals.

In connection with this, of crucial importance for Ukraine will remain the question of the United States’ further support to our State . In order to clarify the situation in Ukraine and to prepare appropriate recommendations to the President and the US Congress, for the end of December this year is scheduled US Senators J. McCain and L. Graham’s visit to Kyiv.

 

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

Proceeding from Russia’s interests and actions, in the nearest future the situation in the Donbas will not change significantly and will be characterized by the continuation of the Russian-terrorist forces’ armed provocations with their periodic activation.

At the same time, Moscow will continue actions to impose on Ukraine the so-called Russian version of the “settlement” of the conflict in the Donbas-based on “Steinmeier’s formula”. In case of the Kremlin’s reaching an agreement with the new President of Moldova I. Dodon about solving the Trans-Dniester conflict through the federalization of the Moldovan state, the precedent will be actively used by Russia in relation to Ukraine.

 

5.3. Other Important Events that Will Have an Impact on Ukraine’s Interests and Security

December 8, 2016, the Advisory Council on International Affairs of the Netherlands (the Dutch government advisory body) urged the country’s leadership to support the Agreement on Ukraine’s association with the EU, despite the negative results of the referendum on the issue in April 2016. According to the Advisory Council, a refusal to ratify this agreement would undermine the consensus among the European countries, which is a prerequisite for the success of the EU’s politics and international stability. In turn, it would be seen by V. Putin’s regime as Europe’s weakness, and would “untie his hands” in operations against Ukraine.

The conclusion of the Advisory Council of the Netherlands is good for our country within the framework of preparations for the European Council meeting on 15-16 December 2016, where the ratification by the Netherlands of the agreement between Ukraine and the EU is

 

Схожі публікації