From the series of Russia-Ukraine Conflict. So, who is still blocking the implementation of "Minsk-2"?

 From the series of Russia-Ukraine Conflict. So, who is still blocking the implementation of "Minsk-2"?

 

 Dr. OLEG BILOUS,

Ph.D, political sciences,

Vice-Rector for Science and Research,

Ivano-Frankivsk Academy Ivana Zolotoustoho,

Ivano-Frankivsk,

Ukraine

 

 

Against the backdrop of an aggravation of the threat of a resumption of hot hostilities in the Russian-Ukrainian war in the Donbas, unprecedented since 2015, the “saber-rattling” of the Russian Federation on the border with Ukraine (120,000 fighters are not jokes), from time to time you hear the voices of “pigeons peace", supporters of Brezhnev's "détente" or a new "reset". They sound, at first glance, quite sane (not all of them are cynical and mercenary "Putinfersteers"). And why, they say, really the West does not take into account the well-founded fears of the Russian Federation about the advancement of NATO to its borders, does not impose an indefinite moratorium on its expansion through the entry of Ukraine, does not show, so to speak, “more respect for Putin” (how sincerely and friendly recommended by a well-known, now retired German admiral). Ukraine could become a neutral, non-bloc, peaceful country, equally friendly to both the West and Russia, an “island of security”, a “bridge”, a “buffer” or something else from the same opera (holy simplicity!) Russia in an instant eye from a threat factor, turns into a problematic, but still a partner, well, business as usual, where would it be without him. Why saturate Ukraine with modern weapons and equipment, only to irritate the Russians in vain? But Ukraine really could take a more proactive approach to the implementation of the Minsk agreements of 2015, by implementing the recommendations of such respected statesmen as F.-V. Steinmeier (with the formula for the name of himself) or E. Macron (with his clusters). The only and only thing is to hold local elections in ORDLO as soon as possible (the OSCE will recognize them “as a whole” as free, transparent, and democratic, some minor violations, you say - but it doesn’t happen to anyone, for the sake of peace you can turn a blind eye to something else). It remains to implement the special status of Donbas into the Constitution, and immediately, as if by magic, peace, friendship, harmony and, in the words of the Russian classic, “welfare of the air” will come. Border control? And, well, of course, after all, the last item, "cherry on the cake." Ukraine's refusal to go for such a suicidal scenario is already regarded as a "non-constructive position", a failure to fulfill its obligations under the Minsk agreements ("You signed it in such a sequence of points, so be kind enough to fulfill it!") But is it so? Let's try to figure it out without emotions, although it is really difficult to resist them (is it possible to imagine a picture more divorced from real life than the naive utopia described above?)

 

Practically all apologists for the Minsk agreements in the West, knowingly or not, bashfully "do not notice" the first 4 points of the agreements, that very "security bloc", which is primary in time sequence and, of course, priority given the creation of conditions for holding elections. They are well known - an unconditional and sustainable ceasefire, the disengagement of troops, the disarmament of illegal military formations, the withdrawal of foreign military units (yes, we remember that there will be no “them”, but “vacationers” and “lost”, together with PMCs, Russia can recall one a nod of the head), the exchange of prisoners on the principle of "all for all". Ukraine conscientiously fulfills its part of its obligations, even to the detriment of the security of its military and the civilian population on the line of contact, Russia pointedly ignores, as evidenced by the reports of the OSCE missions. The legendary “Steinmeier Formula” also bypasses security issues, from its text one gets the impression that these points have already been fulfilled and verified, the conditions for the safe and free expression of the will of citizens have been created, only details with “modalities” remain.

 

But here, too, claims are made against Ukraine - they say, is it really difficult for you to show a gesture of goodwill, to be the first to step forward, to allow your citizens to choose local authorities (turning a blind eye to some random shots in the middle of the night, who knows where). And then return these territories to the Ukrainian legal field based on the broadest autonomy, so to speak, to meet the "wishes of the working people." In the end, for the sake of peace, one should make concessions, painful compromises, "hear each other." Simply put, elections at gunpoint by the occupying forces and local collaborators are not something so unbelievable. The main thing is peace, isn't it?

 

It is difficult to say what is more here - naivety or cynicism. But the fact that the strategic goal of the Russian Federation is to reintegrate CADLO into Ukraine under its “effective control” (an international legal term for actual occupation), which the ECHR now officially counts from April 14, 2014, seems to be clear to everyone. For anything less than changes in the Constitution of Ukraine (neutral, non-bloc status, federalization, the official or regional status of the Russian language, and most importantly, the actual veto right of the "people's republics of Donbas", read - Moscow, on any foreign policy decisions of Kyiv), Russia will not agree to anything. And some in the West, unfortunately, are ready to play along with her in this.

 

And what is wrong with neutrality, federalism, multilingualism - naive pacifists are ready to object. Recall if anyone forgot. In 2014, Russia annexed Crimea and occupied part of the Donbas in a peaceful, neutral, non-bloc country. Will you order us to step on the same rake a second time?

In the end, one glance at the map of hostilities and satellite images of the Russian-Ukrainian border should return to reality. So is it Ukrainian troops in Voronezh or Russians in Crimea and Donbas? Was it Ukraine that pulled the offensive military group to the Russian borders or vice versa? Who should take the first steps, ladies, and gentlemen?

 

Ukraine continues to insist on the implementation of the Minsk agreements in the order they are written in the text - security first. The ball is in the Russian half of the field. The blackmailing of negotiators by the mass passport nation of the population of ORDLO, parliamentary initiatives to legalize the supply of Russian weapons to militants, and even diplomatic recognition by Russia of the so-called DPR and LPR, you understand, are exceptional gestures of goodwill on the part of the Russian Federation, dictated by concern for the civilian population and its protection from genocide like Srebernitsa, and are forcing Ukraine to comply with the Minsk agreements.

Kyiv is aware of all the risks of implementing the Minsk agreements, even in the form in which they were signed - with the restoration of control over the state border by Ukraine after the implementation of the political part. As well as the low chances of adapting the Agreement to modern realities (at least with the introduction of UN peacekeeping forces to the border, which is guaranteed to be blocked in the Security Council by “peace-loving” Russia). But, despite everything, it follows this difficult and painful diplomatic path. At the same time, without giving a second to doubt that we are ready to defend the Motherland with weapons in our hands, even alone, left to the mercy of fate.

 

Unconstructive position, you say? I would like to wish the Western opponents of Ukraine a little more realism in assessing the danger from the Russian Federation and less romantic faith in "appeasement of the aggressor." It ends badly... The memory of Munich in 1938 will help you.