Five scenarios for ending the war in Ukraine

Can not be allowed to continue constantly smoldering fire of war in Europe.

Vladimir Malinkovich – political scientist, journalist, member of the human rights movement in the USSR, member of the Ukrainian Helsinki Group – shared his vision of possible scenarios in the Donbass.

The agreements signed in Minsk in February of this year, raised hopes for an early achievement of peace in the Donbass. Since then, it took almost half a year, and hope this, alas, is gradually began to melt. Increasingly, voices of experts, saying that fulfill Minsk agreements impossible, and it is obvious to everyone. Obviously it is, thank God, not everyone. Most Ukrainian citizens supported the Minsk agreement, although the number of their supporters in recent years has decreased. In February and March of them were expressed 74% of those surveyed by the Kiev Institute of Sociology of Ukrainian citizens (without the “DNR” and “LC”), in July – 57%. Military solution now support 28% of respondents. That is, in the Ukrainian society, supporters of the “Minsk-2” twice as much as advocates of military solutions. But in the political establishment “party of war” a lot stronger.

Real threat of “Minsk-2”

President Poroshenko environment, apparently, does not want a military solution, but it is very afraid of the pressure of the “party of war”. Trying to somehow “slip between the raindrops”, it shows the dual approach. Its Western partners Poroshenko constantly reassures the commitment of the Minsk agreements. But quite a different sound of his statement, so to speak, “for domestic consumption.” Here is what he says to the West: “We are going ahead of schedule. 11th point (. Minsk Protocol – VM) de facto implemented: we launched the constitutional process, the law on the peculiarities of the local self-government adopted, and it is clearly written position. Ukraine has fulfilled its commitments. ” Ukrainian president says the same radicals that adopted on first reading an amendment to the Constitution, no significant differences in the status of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions is not intended to:

Both the West and the Ukrainians Poroshenko misleading. 11 th item of the Minsk agreements Ukraine, of course, has not yet been completed (either de facto or de jure). Firstly, because there is provided a “special status of certain areas of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions,” from which Poroshenko categorically denies. Secondly, because the constitutional reform, ostensibly launched, suggests “as a key element of decentralization, taking into account the characteristics of individual regions of Donetsk and Lugansk regions, coordinated with representatives of these areas”, and while these features no one who did not agree. And third, in the 11th paragraph it is not the launch of the constitutional process and the “constitutional reform in Ukraine, with the entry into force by the end of 2015 a new constitution.” Only when will come into force a new constitution,

So far, up to this very far. The law on the peculiarities of the local self-government in certain areas of Donbass, which is referred to Poroshenko, comes into force only after all the Donbass will be under the control of Kiev, which if possible, it is only after the completion of “Minsk process” and not at its current stage.

The text of the amendment is subject to varying interpretations (one of them just showed Poroshenko, claiming the absence in the text and hint of special status), which will allow the president and the Verkhovna Rada at any time to change how decisions of local authorities in the Donbass, and this very power. And finally, the last: the beginning of the launch process can never be completed, as in the first reading amendment passed by a simple majority (288 votes), and the second reading required a qualified majority (300 votes), which until Poroshenko no supporters.

Kiev political analyst Vladimir Fesenko reveals the meaning of the position of the presidential team in this question: “Who is the inclusion of this proposal in the constitutional bill fulfills a purely tactical function – shows Western partners willingness to carry Minsk agreement.” In October, the “DNR” and “LC” will be held local elections “without the participation of the Ukrainian side.” Thus, according to Fesenko, the separatists themselves buried “Minsk-2”, and then the need for “conflict-prone sentence” will disappear, and it can be removed from the constitutional bill. So rush to the final vote for the project is not worth it.

Designated Vladimir Fesenko tactic is already being implemented. July 17 the Verkhovna Rada has appointed 25 October local elections in Ukraine, specifically stated that the occupied part of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions elections will not be held. Few people paid attention to it, which is a pity.
In Sec. 4 we are talking about the need for joint development of the parties in conflict conditions “for local elections in accordance with the Ukrainian legislation.” In the 12th the same paragraph states that “issues relating to the local elections, will be discussed and agreed with the representatives of individual regions of Donetsk and Lugansk regions.” Instead of something to coordinate and develop, Kiev just canceled the elections.

Will not work in the Donbas election, any new complications – not the point of the 9th arrangements will be implemented: the restoration of full control of Ukraine on the state border, “which should begin on the first day after the local elections and be completed after a comprehensive political settlement …, subject to paragraph. eleven”. The point at which Kiev is interested most of all because it is the preservation of the territorial integrity of Ukraine. The leaders of the “DNR” and “LNR” Minsk suggested the contact group its own version of local elections – it nobody even discussed. Then they said that they themselves hold the elections and appealed to the OSCE to ensure the control of OSCE they refused, citing the absence of the consent of Kiev. Most likely, the local elections in the republics still take place in October, but they will not be recognized by the world community.

It is obvious that the responsibility for the failure of “Minsk-2” Kiev put it on the leaders of the “DNR-LC” (forgetting that he himself made up for it), and the West, of course, agree. Responsibility for all on the self-proclaimed republic does not make sense: they and so no one recognized. It is more important to understand what will follow after the failure of the “Minsk-2”.

Scenarios for Donbass

One gets the impression that Kiev is not a reasonable strategy in the Donbass. Scenario-that is, but whether they are well thought out, can be judged by analyzing the possible options for development events offered by the director of the National Institute for Strategic Studies Vladimir Horbulin ( “Mirror of the Week” newspaper, 07.19.2015). Note that this is Gorbulin represents Ukraine in the subgroup that meets in Minsk for a political settlement of the conflict.

The first scenario – “total war”, in which “Ukraine has a chance to win,” the cost of which will be “the destruction of infrastructure and economic potential of Ukraine, numerous victims among the civilian and military.” While the first scenario, Gorbulina is not intended to Ukraine, he does not consider it totally unacceptable. It is, in his view, serious pluses: Ukraine to get rid of the current “fifth column” outspoken supporters of the “Russian world”; will get its own “heroic epic” as a ground for patriotic education of future generations; “Most of the issues of Ukrainian-Russian relations will be resolved definitively and historical paths diverge both peoples forever,” which, apparently, Gorbulina quite satisfied.

But if not a “total war”, then what? Gorbulina We have three more peaceful scenario. The second scenario – “clipping” of the occupied territories of Donbass. “Should we continue to fight for the destroyed during the armed conflict and pillaged the territory, population balances that do not express a desire to return under Ukrainian jurisdiction” if the loss of the Ukraine regions, “dominated by renegade and consumer sentiment,” will create the right conditions for the reform of the country. Such a development would, in the opinion of Gorbulina, quite satisfied with Kiev, but it will negatively affect the prestige of the country and will cause some difficulties to adapt to the new situation. The third scenario involves unilateral concessions to Moscow, and therefore does not suit Kiev. The fourth scenario, “freezing the conflict” on the model of Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia. So writes Gorbulin, but he clearly means something quite different, namely that the current territory of the “DNR” and “LNR” “remain a part of Ukraine, possibly, in the conditions of their powers.” Something like this just mean the Minsk Agreement. Gorbulin recognizes that the fourth scenario could quickly end the war and would suit the EU countries, allowing them to deal with other problems, but it does not interest Ukraine. Because it will have to restore the Donbass, to bear the economic burden “in the name of the affected refugee regions” that will serve as a source of political instability. In short, the fourth scenario envisaged agreement “Minsk-2” does not need Ukraine, it is not a sin and tear. that the current territory of the “DNR” and “LNR” “remain a part of Ukraine, possibly, in the conditions of their powers.” Something like this just mean the Minsk Agreement. Gorbulin recognizes that the fourth scenario could quickly end the war and would suit the EU countries, allowing them to deal with other problems, but it does not interest Ukraine. Because it will have to restore the Donbass, to bear the economic burden “in the name of the affected refugee regions” that will serve as a source of political instability. In short, the fourth scenario envisaged agreement “Minsk-2” does not need Ukraine, it is not a sin and tear. that the current territory of the “DNR” and “LNR” “remain a part of Ukraine, possibly, in the conditions of their powers.” Something like this just mean the Minsk Agreement. Gorbulin recognizes that the fourth scenario could quickly end the war and would suit the EU countries, allowing them to deal with other problems, but it does not interest Ukraine. Because it will have to restore the Donbass, to bear the economic burden “in the name of the affected refugee regions” which will serve as a source of political instability. In short, the fourth scenario envisaged agreement “Minsk-2” does not need Ukraine, it is not a sin and tear. that the fourth scenario could quickly end the war and would suit the EU countries, allowing them to deal with other problems, but it does not interest Ukraine. Because it will have to restore the Donbass, to bear the economic burden “in the name of the affected refugee Regions”, which will serve as a source of political instability. In short, the fourth scenario envisaged agreement “Minsk-2” does not need Ukraine, it is not a sin and tear. that the fourth scenario could quickly end the war and would suit the EU countries, allowing them to deal with other problems, but it does not interest Ukraine. Because it will have to restore the Donbass, to bear the economic burden “in the name of the affected refugee regions” that will serve as a source of political instability. In short, the fourth scenario envisaged agreement “Minsk-2” does not need Ukraine, it is not a sin and tear.

Judging by what was said Horbulin (as he positions – chief designer of the Ukrainian state strategy), orients its policy of Kyiv mostly on the fifth scenario – a scenario “neither war nor peace” or “limited war and permanent negotiation.” Here it is supposed to combine “limited and restraining war against Russia and collaborators in the east with a view to inflict as many losses discourages” with “constant negotiation process, but without the final fixing of the results in a variety of arrangements and sizes.” In fact, it is this, rather than the script Minsk should be called “freezing the conflict.” I am afraid that the freeze will not work – will be “smoldering fire”, which, if not extinguish, fire may break out a new even more devastating than before the war.

How to protect the “Minsk-2”?

Reasonable alternative to the Minsk Agreement simply does not. That is why today it is essential to provide them with social support. As long as no such support. Abstract talk a lot, no specifics. Specifics involved in Minsk contact group, and even the leaders and ministers of Ukraine, Russia, Germany, France, the United States and the OSCE during their negotiations with each other. All these negotiations are closed, which is quite natural: not all and not always possible to take out to the public. But the public should not remain on the sidelines. It is necessary, I think, the public lobby of the Minsk agreements.

What do I need to practice?

The most pressing topic that requires public debate – is the question of how to carry out all the same in the individual areas of Donbass local elections, which will be recognized by the world community. If these elections will be held in Kiev will be a partner for negotiations on the future status of Donbass, which he will have to recognize at the same time disappear formal justification for anti-terrorist operations. Can not be allowed to continue constantly smoldering fire of war in Europe. It is important to ensure that European leaders stepped up pressure on the parties to the conflict with a view to avoid any actions that could complicate the implementation of the Minsk agreements. Such as: the rejection of the constitutional consolidation of special status of Donbass, a focus on “limited war and permanent negotiation”, the rejection of amnesty for all parties to the conflict and, of course,

Sourse, 03/08/2015