How to put an end to the war: the obvious solution
In Kiev began to publicly discuss the possibility of a political solution to the crisis in the Donbass. Prior to this, the Ukrainian mass media (like Russian) are increasingly engaged in finding and denouncing the guilty, trying to ignite them universal hatred. Hatred, as we know, does not contribute to the approximation of peace. But here June 19 there were just two publications, the authors of which offers specific options for the crisis.
In the newspaper “Mirror of the Week” published an article by the president of Ukraine adviser and director of the National Institute for Strategic Studies, Vladimir Gorbulina. As the author of this article is responsible for the development of Ukraine’s political strategy, its work should be of particular interest. Recognizing that the situation in the Donbass region now, “stalemate”, Gorbulin suggests considering as many as five possible scenarios for overcoming the crisis.
In contrast to his political analyst Kost Bondarenko in his analytical work is looking for a way to resolve the conflict in the Donbass, subtracting the war out of the equation.
The first scenario: “total war”
It would seem obvious that such a scenario absolutely can not be tolerated. Alas, the adviser to the president of this conclusion does not. According to him, “Ukraine has a chance to win an all-out war, as opposed to her country with limited technological and financial resources; low “margin of safety” of the political system; population, which is characterized by negative demographic dynamics and the inability to resist aggressive national minorities; “Nedomodernizovannoy” army. ” Gorbulin recognizes that “victory will be destroyed at the cost of infrastructure and economic potential of Ukraine, numerous casualties among both military and civilian,” that “this scenario can bring not only victory, but also considerable losses for the country.” Nevertheless, he said, that “the whole scenario of all-out war targeted for Ukraine to win and preserve the territorial integrity … In the case of the defeat of Russia in such a war will be finally resolved the question of Donbass accessories and Crimea, Ukraine will get rid of the current” fifth column “outspoken supporters of the” Russian world “, will receive 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. While the first scenario is not the purpose of the Ukrainian state, and, in general, it is unlikely Gorbulin not consider it totally unacceptable – the advantages, they say, it is not less than minuses.
The second scenario: “cut off all the occupied territories of Donbass”
“Further historical fate of these territories will be interested in Ukraine only in terms of ensuring its own security – namely, the power of defensive structures and sufficient insulation of these lands.” This decision, according to Gorbulina, a blow to the international prestige of Ukraine and will cause certain difficulties to adapt to the new situation. “However, the absence in the regions of Ukraine, dominated by renegade and consumer sentiment” will give the opportunity to create “favorable conditions for the reform of the country.” Vladimir Gorbulin explains the feasibility of such a scenario, the presence of “significant mental gap between a particular part of the residents temporarily occupied areas of Donbas and the majority of the Ukrainian society.” Many in Ukraine, according to Gorbulina, asking: “Should we continue to fight for the destroyed during the armed conflict were plundered by Russian invaders territory, the remains of the population which does not express a desire to return under Ukrainian jurisdiction?” The fact that a very senior government official said residents of Donbass renegades and consumers of others (despite the fact that in the Donets Basin was carried out most a large proportion of Ukrainian GDP), to put it mildly, surprised, but if such an opinion in the Ukrainian leadership and indeed dominates, then Kiev, apparently, it is necessary to agree on a time water with unloved and unloving of Donetsk residents.
The third scenario
This scenario, which provides for unilateral concessions to Moscow, would not be worth talking because of its lack of any serious content, if not for one detail: Vladimir Gorbulin some reason considers itself the recognition of Donbass autonomy within Ukraine concession to Moscow to pressure . While it is clear that this is primarily concerned with the Ukrainian state – because it thus retains its territorial integrity in the east.
The fourth scenario, “freezing of the conflict along the lines of Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia”
Under this scenario, the author writes, “so-called DNR and LNR remain a part of Ukraine, possibly on the conditions for granting them special powers.” It is obvious that we are dealing here with inexcusable for researchers and policy inconsistencies. Compare with Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia clearly limping all these republics consider themselves independent states, while DNR and LNR, in this scenario, have to admit that their territory will remain a part of the Ukrainian state. In fact, the fourth scenario – is the option that provides the Minsk Agreement, but only Gorbulin paints it in dark colors that highlights the very title of “freezing the conflict.” Gorbulina not like the fact that Ukraine will have to restore the ruined Donbass it is that there will be a naughty mode ( “puppet, controlled from the Russian Federation “), will remain” a source of political instability “and” economic burden in the face of “victims” dependent regions. ” 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 has, in his opinion, not interested in Ukraine.
Fifth scenario: the scenario of “neither war nor peace” or “limited war and permanent negotiation”
It is about combining the “Limitations and constraints of the war against Russia, and collaborators in the east with a view to inflict as many losses can be demotivating” with “constant negotiation process, but without the final fixing of the results in a variety of arrangements and sizes.” Ukraine, this scenario considers Gorbulin, quite satisfied, because it will allow to increase the military and technological potential, and eventually go on the offensive throughout the Donbas. The author reveals here the essence of the current Ukrainian politicians. In fact, it recognizes that the simultaneous conduct of “limited war” and not for the result of negotiations, and for the sake of delaying the time to re-Ukrainian army with the subsequent transition to the offensive is the aim of the current Ukrainian authorities. A Minsk agreements need to Kiev only to mask. Those,
Inclined to war
Judging by the mood expressed in the article, Gorbulin prefers the second or fifth scenario, but admits that under pressure Ukraine will have to agree to the “undesirable and hopeless” scenario №4 – the one that provided the Minsk Agreement. In this case, Ukraine, in his opinion, should be put forward as many as nine requirements. It recognizes the special status of Donbass only as a temporary measure, without making corresponding changes to the Constitution, and reserves the right to eliminate it – at any time and in any manner (not excluding, of course, and military – Ed.).. By agreeing to such a scenario, Ukraine “ceases to fulfill any obligations to those who decided to stay in these areas, and the general management performs a body composed of representatives of international organizations and the States concerned. Stop any economic contacts with the occupied territories, including the supply of food, energy and the like. Humanitarian aid is provided for under the auspices of the UN and the Red Cross. ” Original, to say the tougher attitude to those who agree to remain citizens of the Ukrainian state (namely, it provides №4 scenario).
The author offers and other conditions for the implementation of the fourth scenario, but all the requirements put forward by consciously formulated them so that they could not agree with the DNR and LNR. So, №4 scenario definitely turn into №5 scenario against which the author of the publication, apparently, did not mind. This circumstance it would be necessary to pay special attention, especially because it is Gorbulin headed by the Ukrainian side in the sub-group on a political settlement of the conflict in Donbas. I’m afraid that with such an important leader of the working group Ukraine is unlikely to fulfill the Minsk agreement.
War – not an option
Quite a different impression appeared on the Internet at the same time with Article Gorbulina analytical work Kost Bondarenko “Ukraine: Between Dayton and Evian.” The author rejects a military solution to the conflict: “War – is not an option … The present war in eastern Ukraine has not become a brilliant anti-terrorist operation. It is exhausting and Ukraine is becoming increasingly unpopular among the people (as evidenced above all the data of sociological surveys and the mass evasion of mobilization) … “” bitter end “will not be – the victory may prove Pyrrhic … Moreover, let us speak frankly: the year Ukraine will not demonstrated no significant victories on the fronts. “
Kost Bondarenko rejected as a way of solving the problem is not only an all-out war, but now pursued a policy of limited war Kiev and permanent negotiation. Using this policy, Ukraine, in his opinion, is rapidly losing the support of the West, “turning into a stone that hit the shoe and constantly reminds himself.” The EU does not see positive changes in Ukraine and do not want to complicate relations with Russia because of “roguish and helpless Ukrainian government, which is not able to demonstrate at least some positive change within their own country and covers its war mistakes.” Yes, and the United States now there are many other problems, primarily in the Middle East and Central Asia. In other words, “the continuation of the conflict with simultaneous obvious subjectivity crisis in Ukraine will lead to that the issue of resolving the situation in the East would cease to be a sovereign and internal matter of Ukraine itself – our problem will be solved for us, placing us before the fact. And it’s the worst thing in this situation. “
Bondarenko Minsk agreements are not among the diplomatic victories of Ukraine, but “their compromise can prevent further escalation of the conflict and help normalize the situation in the east.” It is possible that the Kiev authorities do not hurry to fulfill the Minsk agreement, may make the case to a dead end, a political scientist offers two options to solve the problem.
Between Dayton and Evian
The first option – the analogue of the Dayton Agreement in 1995, Bosnia and Herzegovina transformed into a kind of confederation Bosniak (Muslim-Croat) and the Republika Srpska, the management of which is controlled from the outside. Bondarenko recognizes that Kiev is not ready for such a scenario. In my view, it is unrealistic not only because of the inflexible position of Kiev. Serbian and Bosnian part of the federation (or confederation) may exist, albeit under external control, because they are approximately equal in population. The creation of a confederation of the 40 millionth Ukraine and two or three million (total) “people’s republics” Donbass unreal – not the scale.
The second option – a scenario similar to that provided for the Evian agreement in 1962. Then French President de Gaulle and the Algerian rebel leader Ben Bella “could shake hands” and have agreed to hold a referendum on the status of Algeria, where the vast majority of participants were in favor of the independence of the former colonies. “The greatness of Charles de Gaulle, – says Kost Bondarenko – manifested in the fact that he would have to end the war, did not ask the legitimacy of those who sat on the other side of the negotiating table. He negotiated with those from whom depended on the final solution. De Gaulle did not succumb to the pressure of the generals, who even tried to stage a coup. He did not cling to the fetishes of “inviolability of frontiers” – he put an end to the war. ” Although Bandarenka writes about it, but the comparison between the former French president and current head of the Ukrainian state arises by itself. But Petr Poroshenko not de Gaulle. Fear of the President of Ukraine before the “war party” immediately catches the eye, and therefore count on his decisive steps towards the completion of military operations is very difficult. Although, who knows …
At the end of the article the author once again returns to the Minsk agreement and recalls that if they are implemented, Ukraine will have to choose between the American Dayton and Evian, France. But if you draw a straight line between the two cities, “exactly in the middle would be the place where lies the sunken” Titanic “.” “It is symbolic?” – asks Bondarenko concluded.
Strategy for Donbass
Not really – I say on my own. Dayton script is unreal, what in principle he agrees Bondarenko. Evian is in Ukraine may well become a reality. Even Gorbulin (and along with it many other Ukrainian politicians, not excluding, I think, and the president) is quite serious about the possibility of the implementation of the second scenario, that is, to “cut off the Donbas.” Yes, Poroshenko not de Gaulle, but having received the public support of the war-weary population Ukraine, it could still take a chance and to agree to the Ukrainian Evian-les-Bains. But while public support for the idea of ”cutting off the DNI and LC” in Ukraine is low (according to the latest survey of the Kiev International Institute of Sociology, a little more than 4%). As for the residents of the DNI and LC, then, according to the KIIS, 38% of all respondents (41, 3% undecided) spoke in favor of autonomy or special status of Donbass as a part of Ukraine, 48% (51.3% undecided) – for the region’s independence or its joining to Russia. It would be important, I think, to know the opinion of residents of Donbass, expressed in a referendum under the supervision of the OSCE.
In any case, the best solution today – no Dayton or Evian, and the Minsk agreement. Uvilivaya the need for their implementation, Poroshenko making a big mistake. After all, implementing the Minsk agreement, he could rely on the support of public opinion: almost three-quarters (74%) of respondents Ukrainian citizens CMIS support them. And under these agreements enshrined in the Constitution of the special status of Donbass and the autonomy of the Ukrainians, too, support the region (48.6% of all respondents, 53% undecided). The Ukrainian part of the Donets Basin for it expressed 68.5% of respondents undecided. Even in the DNI and LC, as we already know, such 40%. An increasing number of people are beginning to understand that war is necessary as soon as possible to finish and for this you need to make compromises (the opinion of 51% of all respondents KIIS citizens of Ukraine and 79% of residents of Donbass).
It is very important that in the implementation of the Minsk agreements and insist Western allies. Remind guarantors Minsk-2 were not only Russian, but also the largest EU countries – Germany and France. Let us not forget that under the agreements signed by Ukraine and itself. And today, according to information from Sergei Rahmanina “ZN”, complying with all the provisions of the Minsk-2 require and the United States, which is a very strong argument for the Ukrainian leaders. In other words, both the external and internal Ukrainian factors should encourage Kiev to the need first of all to do everything for the implementation of the Minsk agreements and refuse to delay a policy that no good will not.
It’s time to change the Kiev strategy for Donbass. Why could begin a policy change? First of all it is necessary to fix a special status of Donbass in the Constitution or in a special law is adopted, as recommended by the Venice Commission, a qualified majority of BP and cancel the same way. Otherwise, the adoption of this law can be viewed as merely a trick that aims to deceive the world community as soon as it recognizes the Minsk agreement executed immediately BP simple majority will leave Donbass without special status.
Next: October 25, to be held nationwide (and hence the Donbass) local elections. And in the breakaway region will be recognized by the European and global public authorities, which can not be ignored. Especially in the Minsk agreement expressly refers to the local elections in “certain areas of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions”, which positions itself as DNR and LNR. Kiev’s time to engage in a dialogue with their representatives on the conditions of the election.
It is obvious that the elections should take place on the basis of Ukrainian legislation, but with the amendments dictated by the situation. What, then, can be the basic conditions for holding local elections in the Donbass?
First, elections must be held on the basis of the Law of Ukraine on local elections, but only by majority system. Other options are not possible – because for the past one and a half years in these areas do not have party organizations (except, perhaps, a communist).
Second, it is necessary to reach a compromise on the issue of the formation of local electoral commissions, since, according to Ukrainian law, they form the territorial organization of the parliamentary parties, and these, as already mentioned, in the Donets Basin, virtually none. Where possible, as it seems, a compromise in which the district and precinct election commissions have included people offered the local community and have received the approval of Ukrainian Central Election Commission. It is important that in each election commission was necessarily representative of the OSCE.
It should be noted that Poroshenko in his address to the Verkhovna Rada of June 4 seems to be suggested a compromise of the local elections in the Donbass. He recommended that BP special model majoritarian system of elections of chairpersons and deputies of local councils, and also offered to form election commissions the CEC decision with the assistance of organizations conducting elections on the ground. Curious proposal, but so far it has not developed, and the newly adopted law on local elections, a word about it.
The third prerequisite for the holding of elections in the Donbass should be the complete absence of any armed people in residential areas, where the elections are held. All units of the DNI and LC (except for the teams on duty at checkpoints) should be in the places of their permanent location, in any case, without leaving them with arms.
And finally, fourth: monitoring of the election campaign should ensure that representatives of the OSCE, of which at the time of the election should be increased several times. It should invite the largest possible number of observers from the most authoritative international organizations.
The holding of local elections in the Donbass will create legitimate authority. And declare it a terrorist war waged against it (formally antiterrorist operation) Kiev can not. If the local elections will be held successfully, a very important step towards the implementation of the Minsk agreements will be made. And if not? If a compromise can not be reached, and talks about the elections would be disrupted, it would mean the failure of the Minsk agreements. In this case, the DNI and LC can take the initiative and appeal to the OSCE and the UN to help carry out and monitor the local elections in the Donbass, but without Kiev. International organizations would be difficult to deny them this requirement. It will not be the best option for Ukraine. And it will be only one way of solving problems – Ukrainian Evian, that is complete, “clipping” DNR and LNR. Because the “total war”, even in this situation can not be regarded as an acceptable scenario. It should be ruled out as a form of collective suicide.
Article Gorbulina http://gazeta.zn.ua/internal/pyat-scenariev-dlya-ukraino-rossiyskih-otnosheniy-_.html
Article Bondarenko http://glavcom.ua/articles/30156.html
About the author: Dr. Vladimir Malinkovich, born in 1940, – the political scientist, journalist, member of the human rights movement in the USSR, member of the Ukrainian Helsinki Group.. From 1980 to 1992, as a political emigrant, he worked in Munich, editor of “Radio” Liberty “and the chief editor of the journal” Forum “(published by” Suchasnist “). Former Adviser to the President of Ukraine Leonid Kuchma, chairman of the democratization and development of civil society to the Commission, the Secretary of the Constitutional Commission, director of the Ukrainian branch of the International Institute of Humanitarian and Political Studies, one of the initiators of the adoption of the current Constitution of Ukraine, as well as the law on languages in Ukraine. Author of six books and many articles have been translated into two dozen languages.
Sourse, 03/07/2015
