The Role of Germany in Opposing Russia’s Armed Aggression against Ukraine and the International Community’s “Sanctions Pressure” on Russia
The Russian “Blitzkrieg” in the Crimea (February-March 2014)
Russia’s military invasion of Ukraine caused tough and frankly negative reaction of leading countries both, at the national level and within international organizations, including the UN, OSCE, EU and NATO. Despite the fact that Moscow keeps denying any involvement in the events in Ukraine, the fact of the Kremlin’s military aggression has been recognized by the overwhelming majority of the international community.
In this connection, a special resonance in the world was caused by Russian President V. Putin’s appeal to the Russian Federation Council for permission to use the Russian Armed Forces on the territory of Ukraine, which immediately and unanimously was granted by the upper house of the Russian parliament. The West was also astounded with the “mass support” for the Kremlin’s actions against Ukraine in the Russian society, as it was stated by the Russian media.
Russia’s armed aggression against Ukraine was perceived by the Western countries, their allies and partners as a threat to the global, regional and personal security from the regime of V. Putin, that demanded an adequate response to Moscow. In contrast to August 2008, when Russia’s attack against Georgia with which the Kremlin actually “got away with it” because of the West’s reluctance to spoil the economic relations with Russia, this time the situation had a very different character, which was a complete surprise for the Russian side.
Thus, Russia’s actions towards Ukraine have been officially condemned by a majority of the leading international organizations in the sphere of collective security and are regarded as the occupation of Ukrainian territories and Moscow’s violation of all norms of international law. In particular, these conclusions were made during the meetings of the UN Security Council — March 3 and March 28, 2014, of the OSCE — March 20, 2014, as well as of the Council of the EU — March 21, 2014 (signed the political part of the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement). The members of these organizations, not just formally condemned the Putin regime’s policy towards Ukraine, but really began to exert pressure on the Russian Federation in the political, economic and security spheres.
Already March 6, 2014, the European Union put into operation the first package of sanctions against Russia, including suspension of the Euro-Russian negotiations to ease the visa regime and conclusion of a new partnership agreement of the parties. Besides, under the EU sanctions got a group of representatives of the Russian government, the business community, the armed forces and intelligence services from V. Putin’s environment, as well as other persons directly involved in the organization and implementation of Russia’s occupation of the Crimea.
Even more ambitious, in fact, a geopolitical blow to the Russian Federation was caused by the USA, Germany, France, the UK and other leading countries’ decision to suspend the process of preparing the next “Big Eight” Summit (G8), which had been planned to take place in Sochi in June 2014, and was crucial for Russia, as “proof of its leading role in the world”. That was the beginning of the international isolation of the regime of V. Putin and actual thwarting of the Kremlin’s plans to consolidate Russia as part of the “elite club” of world leaders.
At this, a leading role in the European Union’s putting pressure on Russia again was played by Germany. Thus, the EU’s position on Moscow’s actions against Ukraine was made public by the Federal Chancellor of Germany A. Merkel already March 13, 2014 in her address to the Bundestag (German parliament) about Putin’s regime’ plans to conduct the so-called “referendum on the status of the Crimea” March 16-17, 2014.
In her speech to the Bundestag, A. Merkel clearly and unambiguously accused Russia of having provoked the conflict in Ukraine, of having violated the territorial integrity of the Ukrainian State, and of destabilizing the entire European continent. At the same time, she expressed the EU’s intentions to strengthen sanctions against Russia in case of Moscow’s realization of plans to change the status of the Crimean Peninsula.
In particular, the EU was going to enlarge the list of Russian politicians, businessmen and military, who would not be allowed to enter the European Union, as well as to introduce new restrictions on the use of their accounts in European banks. Besides, the EU would possibly give up holding the European Union-Russia summit.
According to A. Merkel, in case of Moscow’s further actions to provoke tensions in Ukraine and its refusal to negotiate, the EU would not be slow to resort to more stringent measures of pressure on Russia, namely — would impose qualitatively new sanctions, which would directly affect the economic cooperation between the European Union and the Russian Federation.
Such sanctions were a direct threat to Moscow, because at that moment the share of Russia’s foreign trade with the EU was approximately 40 % (including 10-12 % with the Federal Republic of Germany) of the total trade turnover of the Russian Federation with other countries. In its turn, Russia’s share in the EU’s external trade amounted to no more than 6 %, making the European Union actually independent from the Russian Federation in the sphere of trade. Besides, the European Union had achieved significant practical results in getting rid of Europe’s dependence on Russian gas as the main factor of Moscow’s influence in the EU.
At the same time, Russia still in a state of euphoria caused by its having captured the Crimea, believed that Western society would let it get away with it. Therefore, March 16, 2014 Russian invaders did hold a parody of a referendum in the Crimea, which actually took place under the muzzles of the Russian military’s assault rifles and in violation of all possible international norms and requirements.
According to the data provided by the Russian Federation, which were not supported by any objective indicators, for the Crimea and Sevastopol’ “rejoining” Russia voted 96.77 % population of the Crimean Peninsula and of the “city of Russian glory”. The extraordinary plenary session of the Verkhovna Rada of the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea March 17, 2014, adopted the Resolution “On the Crimea’s Independence”. 85 out of 100 deputies of the Crimean parliament voted for it.
In turn, the same day, on the persistent initiative of Germany, the EU Council of Foreign Ministers took the decision to move to the next stage of sanctions against Russia, and imposed restrictions in the form of a prohibition on entry and the “freezing” of assets for another more than 20 Russian and Crimean officials. At the same time, additional sanctions against the former Russian and Ukrainian authorities were imposed by the USA.
At the same time, the EU and US sanctions did not sober V. Putin’s regime which was still perceiving them (sanctions) as the West’s purely “demonstrative” reaction and hoped that the Western countries and international organizations would soon “get tired” of the “Ukrainian problem” (as it actually happened after the “Orange Revolution” in Ukraine in 2004) and would gradually change its position in favor of the Russian Federation.
March 18, 2014, Russian President V. Putin and the impostors — the Chairman of the ARC Council of Ministers S. Aksenov, Speaker of the Verkhovna Rada of the Crimean Autonomy V. Konstantinov and the “Chairman of the Coordination Council for the establishment of life maintenance’ management in Sevastopol” A. Chalyi signed the “Agreement on the Republic of the Crimea Becoming Part of the Russian Federation”.
March 21, 2014 the Russian Federation’s Council adopted the law “On Ratification of the Agreement of March 18, 2014,” and the law “On Formation of New Subjects of the Federation — the Republic of the Crimea and the federal city of Sevastopol”, that “legally” cemented Russia’s annexation of these regions.
Russia’s blunt disregard of norms of international law and the assessment of its actions by the international community increased the number of countries joining the sanctions against Moscow or applying new measures of pressure on the Putin regime. For example, March 18, 2014 visa, and later economic sanctions were introduced against Russia by Japan. March 19 financial and visa restrictions against a certain list of citizens of Russia and Ukraine were introduced by Australia. March 20, further sanctions against Russia were imposed by the United States, expanding the list of Russian citizens who were banned from entering the US, and whose assets in US banks were “frozen”. The sanctions were also joined by the United Kingdom, which “froze” the accounts of about twenty former Ukrainian officials. Additional sanctions in terms of enhancing the isolation of Russia were also introduced by Canada.
March 21, 2014, on the initiative of the Federal Republic of Germany, twelve Russian officials were added to the list of European Union’s sanctions. Other partners and allies of the USA and the EU did not stand aside either. March 23, 2014 sanctions against individuals involved in the seizure of the Ukrainian Crimea were introduced by New Zealand.
International sanctions against Russia blew and actually negated the authority of the Russian Federation as the world’s leading state. At the same time, the sanctions so far touched only the interests of individuals and companies from V. Putin’s environment, and had no real and decisive influence on the Russian economy.
The “Novorossia” Project and the “Geneva” Format (April-July 2014)
The West’s reserved position on imposing sanctions of direct action against the Russian economy was still perceived by the leadership of Russia, as of the USA and the EU’s “being not ready” for a real confrontation with the Russian Federation with a possible prospect of renewal of the state of a new “Cold War”.
Based on these, already at the time wrong estimates, V. Putin’s regime moved to the next phase of the disintegration of Ukraine plans within the framework of the attempts to implement the project of the so-called “Novorossia” as part of the eastern and southern Ukrainian regions.
Thus, in early April 2014, Russia started activities to establish its control over Donetsk, Luhansk, Kharkiv, Odesa, Zaporizhzhya, Dnipropetrovsk, Mykolaiv, and a number of other regions and cities of Ukraine. As a counter-balance to the democratic and European processes, which had spread in Ukraine, in the above-mentioned cities Russia organized massive pro-Russian actions, accompanied by the actions of the provocateurs and extremists with the seizure of Ukrainian bodies of local authorities and blocking the Ukrainian law enforcement agencies.
Like in the Crimea, a leading role in such actions was assigned to special services of the Russian Federation, as well as groups of mercenaries (“little green men”) from Russia and groups of local fighters from among the pro-Russian organizations in Ukraine. At the same time, to eastern and southern cities of Ukraine were sent en masse Russian mercenaries and fighters, the so-called “titushkas” who imitated “anti-Ukrainian participants of uprisings” and were the main force in the implementation of Moscow’s provocative plans.
At the same time, the clear and effective actions of the remaining in power Ukrainian leadership in the person of the Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine Oleksandr Turchynov, the ruling coalition “European choice”, as well as the existing and acting heads of leading ministries and departments, helped to avoid the implementation of the Russian scenario for destroying the Ukrainian State.
Anti-Ukrainian and pro-Russian rallies were suppressed in all eastern and southern regions of Ukraine, but the Ukrainian Donbas, where the main forces of Russian special services were concentrated. Thus, the Russian invaders occupied Slavyansk, Artemivsk, Kramatorsk, Makiyivka, Krasnyi Liman, and then other towns bordering on Russia in the districts of Donetsk and Luhansk regions and the regional centers themselves.
In order to prevent further spread of unrest in the region and to restore the constitutional order in the territories, occupied by Russia, April 13, 2014 the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine announced the launch of the anti-terrorist operation (ATO) in the eastern part of Ukraine. This decision was taken in response to the pro-Russian unrest in a number of cities of Donetsk and Luhansk regions, in particular, to illegal armed groups’ attempts to seize government buildings and security forces. Oleksandr Turchynov, at that time the Acting President of Ukraine, stated that the Russian Federation was leading a war against Ukraine. April 14, 2014, he signed a Decree on the Implementation of the NSDC’s Decision “On Urgent Measures for Overcoming of Terrorist Threat and Preserving Ukraine’s Territorial Integrity”.
Conducting the anti-terrorist operation in eastern Ukraine actually allowed to stop the Russian aggression against Ukraine, as well as to liberate a number of cities, towns and entire regions of the Ukrainian Donbas captured by Russia. The main role in disrupting the Muscovy’s plans for the destruction of the Ukrainian State was played by a gradual restoration of combat capability of the Armed Forces and other uniformed services of Ukraine, purposefully destroyed by V. Yanukovych’s regime.
Of fundamental importance for the revival of all the national security agencies of Ukraine had the volunteer assistance of the Ukrainian population (both ordinary citizens and representatives of small, medium and large businesses), the Ukrainian diaspora, as well as foreign partners of Ukraine, first of all, the United States and the leading members of the European Union and NATO, especially Germany.
In particular, from Germany were supplied to Ukraine certain types of non-lethal material and technical equipment, individual protection equipment for the personnel (helmets and body armor), uniforms and equipment, night vision devices and communication means, as well as medicine and food. Besides, more than 200 Ukrainian soldiers seriously injured in the ATO zone, were treated for free in German hospitals and rehabilitation centers.
But Germany’s truly real and invaluable assistance to Ukraine was provided within the framework of Germany’s (together with the USA and the EU) diplomatic efforts. At the height of the fighting in the East of Ukraine, in April 2014, the United States and Germany actually forced Russia to take part in international negotiations on the settlement of the situation in the Donbas.
The first such negotiations in the so-called “Geneva” format were held April 17, 2014 with the participation of representatives of the USA, EU, Russia and Ukraine. Following the meeting, agreements were reached to end the fighting in the Donbas, to return under Ukraine’s control all the occupied by Russia territories, to release hostages and prisoners of war, as well as not to prosecute the pro-Russian fighters who had not committed serious crimes. Besides, the United States, the EU (including Germany) and Russia promised to help create and support the work of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission (SMM) to de-escalate the situation in the East of Ukraine.
They also announced the beginning of a wide national dialogue in Ukraine with the aim to make amendments to the Constitution of the State, which would take into consideration the interests of all regions, political forces and strata of the population. First of all, they meant decentralization of power in Ukraine, which was to create the preconditions for the achievement of national harmony in the Ukrainian society.
At the same time, the participants of the meeting pointed out the importance of stabilizing the economic situation in Ukraine and agreed on the need to develop, adopt and implement the plan of financial support to the Ukrainian State in the course of implementation of the “Geneva” Arrangements.
In case of Moscow’s compliance with its promises, Western countries and international organizations expressed their willingness to abandon the introduction of new sanctions against the Russian Federation. However, the Kremlin has never fulfilled a single commitment hoping for its successful confrontation with the West.
Thus, Russia continued to provide comprehensive assistance to the separatists and extremists in the East of Ukraine, including by supplying them arms, ammunition and other military equipment. At this, V. Putin’s regime keeps denying any involvement in the events in the Donbas, and insists that Ukraine should recognize the self-proclaimed republics and grant their leaders with an “Official negotiators status”. Besides, Russia demanded that the Ukrainian authorities should give up the idea of joining NATO, and agree with Moscow provisions of the Association Agreement and the Agreement on a Free Trade Area between Ukraine and the EU, give the Russian language “state status” in Ukraine, as well as other unacceptable for Ukraine Russian terms of “stabilization” of the situation in the Donbas.
Such Russia’s actions were condemned by the leadership of the USA and the EU, as they showed Moscow’s actual refusal to fulfill “Geneva” Agreements. In particular, at the end of April 2014, US Secretary of State J. Kerry provided the UN with unequivocal evidence of Russia’s intervention in the armed conflict in the East of Ukraine.
Russia was condemned by German Chancellor A. Merkel after her failed attempts during telephone conversations to persuade V. Putin that the Kremlin had to fulfill its commitments. According to A. Merkel, at the joint press conference with Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk in Berlin, there were absolutely no signs of Russia’s efforts to help the process of settlement of the crisis in the Donbas.
In these circumstances, on 28-29 April 2014, the USA and EU, as well as their partners, in particular Japan and Canada, introduced a series of new sanctions against Russia. Basically, these sanctions were a traditional set of measures to “freeze” bank accounts of Russian politicians, military and businessmen, as well as cancelling their visas.
At this, for the first time since the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine, the United States of America used really effective sanctions against the Russian Federation, involving freezing of bank transactions of 17 Russian companies close to V. Putin, as well as the introduction of ban on high-tech products exports to Russia, which could be used by it for military purposes. Canada’s list also included two Russian financial institutions: “Expobank” and “Rosenergobank”.
At the same time, after the failure of the “Geneva” negotiating format, the USA actually refused to conduct a direct dialogue with Russia because Moscow’s open disregard of Washington’s position on the Ukrainian issue was undermining the credibility of the United States as the leading state of the world. In this regard, the White House formally based its decision on “discrepancy of the statuses of the parties”, namely: the USA’s strategic level and Russia’s regional level. Besides, the United States positioned Russia’s armed aggression against Ukraine, as “primarily a European problem, which must be within the competence of the European Union”.
At the same time, the situation around Ukraine, and therefore — on the eastern border of the NATO and the EU — remained extremely difficult and was becoming worse, which required the West’s adequate reaction. So, on the one hand, the anti-terrorist operation in Ukraine was reaching real results in terms of a gradual and continual release of the occupied Ukrainian lands. And on the other — Russia was activating measures to support the pro-Russian terrorists in Donetsk and Luhansk regions, significantly intensifying provocative military activities near the eastern border of Ukraine, and near the borders of NATO and the EU member states in the Black Sea and Baltic regions.
In this situation, Ukraine’s allies and partners adopted a new concept of action, which included providing comprehensive pressure on V. Putin’s regime with the distribution of the respective roles between the USA, EU and NATO. Thus, the United States took over the strategic functions to influence Russia by organizing its international isolation, and blocking of Russian businesses’ access to Western markets, loans and investments. At this, the international influence, military-political and economic potentials of the USA allowed Washington to play the role of a coordination center of the international community’s actions aimed at strategic deterrence of Russia.
In their turn, the European Union and NATO were carrying out the task of the regional (European) format in terms of negotiations with Russia on Ukraine, and support and practical use of the united Europe’s sanctions against the Russian Federation. At the same time, with the leading support of the USA, NATO and the European Union took measures to strengthen the military security of Europe from the coming from Russia threats. Such threats were becoming increasingly urgent in terms of further intensification of the Russian Federation’s military-provocative activity at the Western direction.
At the same time, an entirely new factor in the development of the situation in Ukraine and around it became the official legitimization of state power in the country as a result of the election of Petro Poroshenko President of Ukraine already in the first round of early presidential elections on May 25, 2014 (which, again, was a surprise to Russia, which hoped for the continuation of a long-term political crisis in Ukraine).
This did not let Russia justify its interference in Ukraine’s internal affairs by “providing assistance in stabilizing the situation in the country” and “helping the Russian-speaking population in the period of anarchy in the Ukrainian territory”. In their turn, the United States, NATO and the EU got a fully legitimate opportunity, concerning the provision of assistance to Ukraine.
The “Norman” Format, Boeing 777, Russia’s Uncovered Invasion of the Donbas, Minsk-1 (July-September 2014)
Under these circumstances, the EU leaders decided that a good opportunity to establish direct relations between the Russian leadership and the new government of Ukraine in order to resolve the Russian-Ukrainian issues would be a resonant event — namely, the 70th anniversary of the opening of the “second front” in the Second World War. The celebration was held June 6, 2014 in the French city of Bénouville in Normandy, where the main combat actions had taken place 70 years before.
At the initiative of the French President F. Hollande, the newly elected President of Ukraine P. Poroshenko and Russian President V. Putin were invited for the celebration. On the eve of V. Putin’s visit to France, German Chancellor A. Merkel and British Prime Minister D. Cameron in the telephone conversations and speeches in the media once again personally warned the Russian leader about the need to fulfill his obligations over Ukraine. At this, they demanded that V. Putin had to cooperate with P. Poroshenko.
Taking into consideration the beginning of real economic problems in Russia due to Western sanctions, as well as Moscow’s desire to avoid further international isolation of the country, V. Putin “agreed” with the EU proposals. The consequence of this was the first informal meeting between P. Poroshenko and V. Putin June 6, 2014, which lasted for just 15 minutes in the presence of A. Merkel and F. Hollande. The questions of stabilization of the situation in the Donbas were discussed very briefly. After the official ceremony dedicated to the anniversary of the events in Normandy, there were bilateral talks between A. Merkel and V. Putin. The main topic of the conversation was again the Ukrainian issue.
Formally, this event generated the so-called “Norman” negotiation format on the settlement of the Ukrainian crisis with the participation of Germany, France, Ukraine and Russia. Despite the absence of any official results of the first meeting in this format, it confirmed the determination of the West’s positions regarding Russia, which showed the impossibility of V. Putin’s getting away with continuation of Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine.
Unfortunately, the negotiations in Normandy could not stop Russia, which predetermined the further expansion of the scale of the military confrontation in the Donbas. Taking into consideration all this, the allies and partners of Ukraine continued to build up sanctions against the Russian Federation, and those sanctions were getting a brand new, the so-called “sectoral” nature and concerned the leading sectors of the Russian economy, especially the energy and military-industrial complexes.
July 16, 2014 the US government spread the sanctions onto a number of Russian companies in the MIC, including the corporation “Almaz-Antey” (development and production of air defence systems), concern “Kalashnikov”, NGO “Izhmash” and “Basalt” (various small arms and ammunition for all weapons), Research and Production Corporation “UralVagonZavod” (armored vehicles), “Konstruktorskoe Buro Priborostroeniya” (KBP)and a number of other enterprises.
The American sanctions also hit companies in the oil and gas sector of the Russian Federation, including “Novatek”, “Rosneft”, “Vnesheconombank” and “Gazprombank”, as well the company in Theodosia supplying the Crimea with oil products. The list of sanctions included now representatives of the government of Russia.
The same day, the sanctions against the Russian Federation were strengthened by the European Union. According to the German initiative, the European Council decided to expand the list of Russian individuals and companies, who were accused of involvement in the violation of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, and also requested the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development to stop funding of new projects in Russia, and the European Investment Bank — to suspend the cooperation program with Russia (in 2014 these programs had been planned in the amount of about 1.5 billion US dollars).
The European Commission and the EU’s Foreign Policy Service were also requested to submit a proposal to freeze all investments into the economy of the Crimea, as well as to call on international financial institutions to refrain from funding all projects that directly or indirectly recognize “the Crimean Peninsula’s becoming part of the Russian Federation”. At this, Germany’s leading role in promoting these initiatives was determined by the largest amounts of its financial contributions and investments into the work of the governing bodies of the EU and the European banking system.
At the same time, the European Union’s sanctions against Russia were still quite limited, as compared with the US sanctions, which could be explained by the large number of business circles of the EU countries (including Germany) being interested in the development of economic cooperation with the Russian Federation, as well as Moscow’s direct bribing of some European politicians and business elites.
This situation fundamentally changed already July 17, 2014, after the cynical destruction by the Russian air defence system “BUK” with Russian crew of the Malaysian passenger plane Boeing-777 (flight MH17) over the conflict zone of the Donbas. As a result of the large-scale terrorist attack, were killed 298 passengers and crew members — mostly Europeans, and that completely stripped the EU leadership and the population of any illusions about “decency and responsibility” of V. Putin’s regime.
July 25, 2014 the European Union introduced a new package of sanctions against the direct organizers of the Russian armed aggression against Ukraine from Putin’s inner circle, including the Chief of the FSB A. Bortnikov; Secretary of the Russian Security Council M. Patrushev; Chief of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (former Prime Minister) M. Fradkov; Deputy Secretary of the Security Council R. Nurgaliev; ex-Speaker of the Russian Federation’s State Duma B. Gryzlov; Chairman of the Chechen Republic R. Kadyrov; Governor of the Krasnodar Territory A. Tkachov, as well as a number of other Russian high-ranking officials. Additional sanctions were also imposed on the leaders of the self-proclaimed republics in the East of Ukraine.
The United States did not stand aside either. July 25, 2014 the United States, as the main shareholder of the World Bank, refused to support its projects in Russia. The same day, Italy suspended the work on the joint project with Russia to build a small submarine S-1000. Later this project was abandoned by France too.
The European Union also continued putting pressure on Moscow. July 29, 2014 the EU decided to introduce the next set of sanctions against V. Putin’s regime, which concerned the Russian energy and financial sectors, as well as military and dual-use products that were delivered to the Russian Federation.
In particular, the financial sanctions included a ban on Russian Banks’ (with the state part of more than 50 %) access to the European credit markets, as well as on issuing Eurobonds (government’s financial obligations) by Russian state banks. The same restrictions were applied to other state institutions of the Russian Federation, corporations and agencies with more than 50 % share of state property. In the energy sphere, the sanctions affected the oil sector of Russia and provided for the prohibition of the export and re-export of high-tech equipment into the Russian Federation.
The United States continued showing the uncompromised position towards Russia. July 30, 2014 the United States Treasury Department imposed restrictions on the export of goods and technologies for the Russian oil projects, which, in fact, was a death sentence for the Russian energy industry. In the situation of the depletion of the already developed oil and gas fields of Russia’s in Western Siberia, the development of new oil and gas deposits in remote areas in the north and east of the country has become almost impossible for the Russian Federation.
The international community’s sanctions against Russia acquired the “avalanche” character: August 3, 2014 the EU Council formally adopted further restrictive measures, extended the sanctions list to 95 individuals and 23 entities from among Russian politicians and businessmen; August 4, Germany suspended the Agreement on the supply of weapons to the military training camp in Russia (the value of contract was EUR 100 million); August 5, Japan joined sanctions against Russia, spreading them on several Russian companies and 40 individuals. On the same day, Switzerland imposed sanctions on 18 Russian companies and 26 individuals; August 6, Israel broke the contract with Russia on supplying the Russian side with new UAVs. On the same day, the new sanctions were imposed by Canada and included “VTB Bank”, “Agricultural Bank”, “Bank of Moscow” and “Russian National Commercial Bank”. Canada’s sanctions were imposed also on the “United Shipbuilding Corporation of the Russian Federation”, the company “Dobrolet” and a number of Crimean enterprises, including “New World”, “Massandra” and commercial ports in Kerch and Sevastopol; August 27 sanctions were strengthened by Switzerland. The list of organizations that were forbidden to establish new financial relationships included five Russian banks, which was especially bad for V. Putin’s environment, who relied on traditional Swiss neutrality and were hiding their money in its banks.
Against this background, Ukraine’s antiterrorist operation in the Donbas got a logical completion. By mid-August 2014, the self-proclaimed republics in the East of Ukraine had been actually eliminated. More than 70 % of the territory of Donetsk and Luhansk regions had been freed, while the main groups of terrorists and militants had been divided and encircled.
Under these circumstances, the leaders of the so-called Donetsk and Luhansk republics, as well as the traitors from among the former leadership of Ukraine — contenders for the “rulers” of the so-called “Novorossia”, openly appealed to Russia for help, explaining it by the inevitable destruction of the DPR and LPR with the further prospect of Moscow’s losing the captured by it Crimea.
Such prospects were not just a direct threat to Russia’s strategic interests in Ukraine, but were also creating an immediate danger to V. Putin’s regime, building its policies on the idea of “a revival of the Great Russian Empire”. Given this, August 24, 2014, Russia began overt bringing of its troops into Ukrainian territories. All in all, to Donetsk and Luhansk regions were brought troops in number equal up to two army corps of the RF Armed Forces, which at that time was 5-6 times superior to the grouping of Ukraine’s force structures in the region.
Russia’s direct military invasion of Ukraine allowed Moscow to maintain the DPR and LPR, and even to expand their territory, including to create the self-proclaimed republics’ access to the Sea of Azov by the capture of the city of Novoazovsk and the adjacent areas at the Russian-Ukrainian border.
At the same time, Russian troops and pro-Russian terrorist groups in Ukraine did not manage to achieve their main goals — full control over Donetsk and Luhansk regions, and creation of land “corridor” to the Crimea and Trans-Dniester.
The reason for this was the heavy resistance of the Armed Forces, National Guard, volunteer units and other power units of Ukraine, which caused significant losses to Russia and stopped further advance of Russian troops deep into Ukraine’s territory. In general, near Donetsk, Luhansk, Ilovaisk, Volnovaha and Novoazovsk were destroyed around 3500 Russian professional military servicemen and mercenaries.
In such circumstances, the USA, EU and NATO countries once again strengthened their political and economic pressure on Russia. Thus, Moscow was warned about introduction of another package of sanctions, starting from September 8, 2014, if it did not stop military operations in the East of Ukraine.
Besides, the situation around Ukraine became one of the central themes of the Wales NATO Summit (September 4-5, 2014), during which a key decision was made to completely rebuild the Alliance’s strategy. Taking into account Russia’s resumption of an aggressive foreign policy with the use of armed force to achieve its aims, NATO’s main focus was shifted from the conduct of antiterrorist and peacekeeping operations in remote areas — to the immediate protection of Europe from military threats from the Russian Federation.
These circumstances put the Putin regime and Russia in a fundamentally new geopolitical situation — an open confrontation with the Western world. In turn, this required from Moscow a substantial increase in military spending, and actually cut it off from western loans, investments and technologies.
In general, all this forced the Russian leadership to abandon further advance into the territory of Ukraine, to stop at the reached boundaries and to begin peace talks, or at least their imitation. The result of the above-mentioned was the signing on the 5th of September, 2014 of the Minsk Protocol (the full title is the Protocol on the Results of Consultations of the Trilateral Contact Group With Respect to the Joint Steps Aimed at Implementation of the Peace Plan of the President of Ukraine P. Poroshenko and the initiatives of the President of Russia V. Putin) — a document that provides, inter alia, for: a cease-fire in the conflict zone; withdrawal of Russian troops and illegal armed units of terrorists and mercenaries from the Ukrainian territory; ensuring the control of the situation by the OSCE Mission; organizing activities on amending the Constitution of Ukraine in terms of decentralization of power in the State; holding of local elections in the occupied territories of Donetsk and Luhansk regions according to the Ukrainian Law; release of all hostages and prisoners of war; renewal of life in the region.
On the part of Russia, the Protocol was signed by the RF’s Plenipotentiary Ambassador to Ukraine Mikhail Zurabov, on the part of Ukraine — by the former President Leonid Kuchma, who had a mandate from the leadership of the country, on the part of the OSCE — by the Swiss diplomat Heidi Tagliavini. After the signing of the Document, the ceasefire came into force on the same day at 18:00 local time.
Provisions and contents of the Minsk Protocol were complemented and concretized during the subsequent meeting of the Contact Group in Minsk on 19-20 September 2014, when the Memorandum was signed, providing, in pursuance of the P.1 of the Protocol, in addition to other measures, meant to secure the bilateral agreement on the termination of use of weapons: removal of heavy weapons (caliber over 100 mm) to 15 km from the line of contact between the parties as of the date of signing of the Memorandum, and thus formation of the security zone, forbidding flights of combat aircrafts and UAVs, and installation of minefields in the security zone.
Later the Minsk Protocol and Memorandum became known as the Minsk Agreements or Minsk-1.
Despite the signing of the Minsk Agreements within the framework of the Minsk-1, the fighting in the East of Ukraine lasted for almost the whole period of their force, and in the middle of January 2015, parties to the conflict had ceased to actually perform the points of both, the Protocol and Memorandum.
So, the Minsk Agreements (Minsk-1) for the first time after the start of the Russian aggression in the Donbas, created a legal basis for the settlement of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict in the East of Ukraine. However, as might be expected, the Russian Federation was not going to implement the provisions and requirements of the Minsk Protocol and Memorandum and, moreover, refused to recognize itself as party to the conflict, though it directly participated in it.