Sunday, April 10, 2016


The Power Vertical

How Do You Solve A Problem Like The Donbas?

A pro-Russian separatist near the Ukrainian village of Frunze in Luhansk Oblast
A pro-Russian separatist near the Ukrainian village of Frunze in Luhansk Oblast
By Brian Whitmore

Just one sentence, inserted into a complex piece of legislation, caused some to wonder whether Kyiv has been sold out by its Western allies.

One sentence that was too much for many Ukrainians. One sentence that was not enough for the Kremlin. One sentence that the United States reportedly lobbied heavily for to assure that Kyiv was holding up its end of the Minsk cease-fire.

The sentence: "The particulars of local government in certain districts of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions are to be determined by a special law." 

This controversy over that one sentence in amendments to the Ukrainian Constitution aimed at devolving some power to the regions is the latest step in the delicate, duplicitous, and dangerous dance between Ukraine and Russia in the twilight of the Donbas war.

From the moment the ink dried on the Minsk cease-fire back in February, it was obvious that the thorniest problem to solve would be how the separatist-held areas of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts would ultimately be reintegrated into Ukraine.

War is politics by other means and the Kremlin's goals in Donbas are ultimately political.

Vladimir Putin may have once dreamed of seizing all of what his propagandists call Novorossia -- the strip of land from Kharkiv to Odesa -- and establishing a land bridge to Crimea.

But that's off the table now and he is clearly not interested in annexing the war-ravaged and economically devastated enclaves his separatists currently hold.

"The Kremlin, for its part, is losing interest in the armed conflict it helped create: It wants to move on from military interference in Ukraine to quieter political destabilization," political commentator Leonid Bershidsky wrote in Bloomberg View. 

The Autonomy Dance

Russia is seeking to have the rebel-held areas enjoy broad autonomy inside Ukraine -- a status similar to that enjoyed by Republika Srpska in Bosnia-Herzegovina. And Moscow wants this status enshrined in Ukraine's constitution. A Ukraine decentralized to the point of dysfunction, after all, would make it all the easier for Moscow to meddle in Kyiv's affairs.

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko is no fool. He knows this is Russia's game. And when he presented his proposals for constitutional reform last month -- a decentralization plan for all of Ukraine -- it made no specific mention of any special status for Donetsk and Luhansk.

But the fact that the version of the law now before parliament does -- and the fact that U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland traveled to Kyiv and met with lawmakers on the day they voted for its first reading -- has made many in the Ukrainian capital nervous.

"Has the United States sold out Ukraine in exchange for Iran and Syria?" asked a headline in gordonua.com

Likewise, in an interview with that same publication, Taras Stetskiv, a former member of the Ukrainian parliament, asked: "What exactly has Russia bought with its signature under the deal to close down Iran's nuclear program? At least a special status for the Donbas in the constitution, and that's why Nuland came to control the vote."

But while Ukrainians like Stetskiv may be suspicious that they have been sold out to Moscow, the Kremlin and its surrogates were unsatisfied.

"Poroshenko's amendments to the draft constitution are a far cry from the Minsk agreements and close only to the political whims of Poroshenko himself," Aleksei Pushkov, chairman of the State Duma's Foreign Affairs Committee, tweeted. 

Kicking The Can

Political analyst Vladimir Socor wrote that "many Western officials are fearful that failure to wrap up a political settlement" on the status of Donetsk and Luhansk by the end of 2015, as stipulated by the Minsk agreement, "could free Russia to 'escalate' again the military hostilities."

As a result, Socor wrote, Ukraine's Western allies are pressuring it into fulfilling these political provisions of the ceasefire despite Moscow's failure to fulfil its end on the military side by ceasing military operations and pulling back heavy weapons.

What Poroshenko effectively did is kick the can down the road a bit.

The legislation that will ultimately determine how much autonomy the rebel held areas will be granted -- the one referenced in the constitutional amendments -- won't be drafted and debated until the autumn, when lawmakers return from their summer recess.

So Kyiv hasn't given Moscow what it wants, enshrining a special status for Donetsk and Luhansk in the constitution -- at least not yet. But it did just enough to satisfy Western powers who are eager to demonstrate that Ukraine is adhering to the Minsk agreement.

It's a clever tactic. But one has to wonder if there is a strategy.

Because what eventually happens with the rebel-held areas of Donbas is crucial to Ukraine's future.

If they are reintegrated the way Moscow wants them to be -- with broad autonomy and the separatist forces legitimized as their political elite and police force -- then Ukraine's sovereignty will be severely curtailed. Integration with the West will be off the table.

If you want to see Ukraine's future under this scenario, just look at Bosnia.

Some observers, most notably Alexander Motyl of Rutgers University, have argued strenuously that it is in Kyiv's best interests to just let the territories go.

"If Kyiv were bold, it would countenance giving the occupied territories the independence that its separatist leaders say they want or have," Motyl wrote recently. 

"Think about it. If Kyiv took the initiative, it could, in one fell swoop, establish clarity in its east. If the enclave were independent, all talk of 'civil war,' autonomy, and 'economic blockades' would cease, and the only issue would be the Russian war against Ukraine proper."

Motyl acknowledges that such a move "would outrage Ukraine’s hyper-patriots and the pro-Kyiv eastern Ukrainians who’ve been fighting for their homeland in the Donbas" and is therefore unlikely.

Instead, the best worst option for Kyiv would be to "freeze the conflict and let the enclave drift away."

Which, by kicking the can down the road a bit, might be exactly what Poroshenko is doing.

This forum has been closed.
Comment Sorting
Comments
     
by: Phil Hudson
July 21, 2015 17:58
Approach so far is so good. Most important is control on entering independent Ukraine. Depending on the election result the effective border should be the international border or the current demarcation line. The de jure border remains as the internationally recognized border. If the vote is pro western, unlikely I guess, then every effort should be made to rebuild. If the pro- Russian side wins then all beyond the demarcation line can raise its own taxes and sink or swim on its own efforts. Either way if Ukraine really addresses reform and most critically corruption then in time the forlorn territories will want to return and if they don't then good riddance.

by: Eurozone
July 21, 2015 18:14
The Minsk II accord was negotiated by Poroshenko, Merkel, Hollande and Putin. Europe declared Russia as the winner and pushed Ukraine under a bus.

Europe is suffering from Ukraine fatigue and is seeking to restore its relation with Russia. Europe wants to sign new gas contracts with Russia and is tired of paying Ukraines bills. Europe sees Ukraine as a corrupt state, controlled by its oligarchs, that has nothing but problems to offer Europe.

And despite all this - It was Europe that offered Ukraine the European Association Agreement that ignited this conflict in the first place.
In Response

by: Giorgio from: Canada
July 21, 2015 21:05
I don't believe that "Europe is seeking to restore its relation with Russia". Russia views Europe and its values as an existential threat to Putin's regime. There is no going back and Europe knows it. A de facto cold-war climate has descended on the region for years to come not because Europe wanted it but because Putin continuously threatens it and because he built up his support on the hatred towards the West. Consequently, Ukraine becomes and important factor and Europe's support for it makes strategic sense. If relations improve substantially, all will win, if they don't, Europe will have gained an ally.
In Response

by: Bob
July 22, 2015 09:39
"Russia views Europe and its values as an existential threat to Putin's regime."

****

Obama's joint chief of staff appointment Dunford said the above in reverse - Russia being an existential threat to the West.

In actuality, Russia has reached out to the West in a number of key instances - only to get dissed.
In Response

by: Giorgio from: Canada
July 22, 2015 14:52
#Bob. I did not say "Putin said". I suggested the current Russian regime developed a consistently hostile stance towards the West backed up by an aggressive military posture and investment, nuclear threats, and systematic internal fight against any western influence on Russian thinking (social, legal, cultural, or democratic). This adds up indeed to a threat to the West and is wisely recognized by some, including those you mention.

by: Neil Nelson from: Cedar City, UT USA
July 21, 2015 18:26
The two arguments given for Poroshenko to make legislative changes for the rebels are:

1) The West has made some deal with Russia on Iran and Syria and in trade for a deal on Ukraine.
2) The West is worried about another Russian offensive if Poroshenko does not make the requested legislative changes.

The idea that the West should reward Putin for his aggressive actions in Ukraine, that the West is worried about military threats and yields to associated demands makes no rational sense. It only invites further aggression. It also makes no sense in that the cost of the war in men and resources has been almost exclusively paid by the Ukrainians. The only option for the West here is to bolster Ukraine's forces to make Russian advances too costly and to increase sanctions as necessary.

That the West would trade Ukraine for deals on Iran and Syria is a kind linkage the West should avoid and also makes no sense. Another problem here is that Putin's actions show we cannot trust him. The West can increase its force application in Iran, Syria, and Ukraine if it feels there is a need. Russia gains on the Iran nuclear deal by reducing nuclear threats to itself and no deal is required there.

Poroshenko needs to do what is best for Ukraine and it is in the West's interest to help Poroshenko do his best. Yielding to Russia's demands under threat of force is madness.

by: Konstantin from: Los Angeles
July 22, 2015 04:21
RFE is controlled by Russians and their proxies,
Specially in Vienna, like Eugenio, or Jack.
By promising German-Vienna Empires,
They took part in my mother's murder,
7/7/2012, forging posts to blame me.
_____________________________
This very post is their invention make
believe that West offers Moscow plot
To divide Ukraine between Russians
and Germany-Austrian new Empires!
Eugenio and alike bring stench again?

by: Mr Vivek Narayan from: London, UK
July 22, 2015 06:53
It is very revealing that federal US, federal Canada and federal Germany don't see the point of a federal Ukraine, especially for the Donbass. What's the matter? Haven't enough people died yet to satisfy the bloodlust for dead "Russians"???
In Response

by: Bob
July 22, 2015 09:41
The Kiev regime rejects that F word, along with recognizing more than one language, in a nation where Russian predominates, along with some others in some regional instances.
In Response

by: spanner48 from: London
July 29, 2015 15:56
Do federal US, federal Canada and federal Germany have provincial/state militia imposing arbitrary martial law?

by: Fred from: Belgium
July 22, 2015 12:14
It is a mistake to think the problem of the Donbass is a local one. It's a national one, so its solution should be national.
Although I agree there are some forces in Ukraine and the West who dream of a Ukraine belonging to the "West" (i.e. EU, NATO, full break with Russia, etc.) no respected scholar in the West sees this as a realistic option, simply because Ukraine is in the first place a country which is historically not "Western". It shares much of its important historical periods with Russia, starting from Kievan Rus to the Soviet Union to today. That's just a fact. The main exception was the Polish-Lithuanian rule, which in the end even further drove Ukraine towards Russia. In this sense, the playbook for the Baltics cannot be applied to Ukraine. This is an important point some politicians should realise. The Russian view that Ukraine and Russia belong together has nothing to do with rebuilding the USSR or neo-imperialsm but is simply more realistic than the view of some in the "West" and Ukraine that Ukraine belongs to the West. So the solution to the problem of Ukraine is to forget about NATO or the EU (France and Germany will always block Ukraine by the way) and to start talking to Russia again, to form closer political, military and economical alliances with Russia again. T. Shevchenko wrote both in Ukrainian and in Russian. This should be the model for Ukraine. If the Donbass (and many other regions like Odessa) see that Kiev and Moscow talk again, the hostilities towards Kiev will stop.

by: PermReader
July 22, 2015 16:37
The only way to enter Europe for Ukraine is to leave the assimilated South East to Russia. Real Ukrainians will chouse their future.

by: Petra
July 29, 2015 03:37
You , guys , all so ignorant and poorly advanced in Historical field... Term Novorossia was used since time of Kathrine the Great ...doesn't matter like it or not ... Get to the independent sources and do your homework, always useful!

by: spanner48 from: London
July 29, 2015 15:52
Perhaps it is Poroshenko who is playing the long game . . . .

The "Referenda" that gave the appearance of support to the Russian/Separatist groups were so biassed as to be a travesty. Russia's own Presidential Human Rights Council published a report on the Crimea "referendum" which showed that only 15-30% of the population favoured joining Russia.

The evidence is that life in Russian-controlled Donbass is ugly: no rule of law; arbitrary arrests and imprisonment; frequent theft, intimidation and abuse of civilians. Poor or non-existent 'government services'. Economic decline and impoverishment. There are already protests - swiftly and severely repressed by the gunmen - of civilians against the anarchic conditions.

Maybe Poroshenko is waiting for things to get so bad that the ordinary people will come to welcome a return to Ukrainian civil administration?

Latest Podcasts

About This Blog

The Power Vertical is a blog written especially for Russia wonks and obsessive Kremlin watchers by Brian Whitmore. It covers emerging and developing trends in Russian politics, shining a spotlight on the high-stakes power struggles, machinations, and clashing interests that shape Kremlin policy today. Check out The Power Vertical Facebook page or