“Minsk” takes a break until November

The Minsk agreements were slammed by many, and few believed they would be effective. There seemed to be a good reason to be skeptical – the post-Maidan authorities that were backed by the powerful western conglomerate did not see any benefits whatsoever in adhering to all of the provisions of the document. Indeed, Minsk II was never implemented by the end of 2015, which was the agreed deadline; however, it proved effective enough to contain the highly precarious situation in Donbass. In the past few weeks this has been obvious as never before.

In the last few days of June the scarcely frozen situation in Donbass started sliding back into an open conflict. Naturally, skirmishes in the conflict zone had never stopped, which is quite normal for this situation. For instance, in Nagorno-Karabakh, the ceasefire regime is broken along the contact line virtually every day over more than two decades now. The conflicting parties in the Caucasus and Donbass alike blame each other for the shootings. However, on 29 June, the Ukrainian Armed Forces supported by armored units cracked the line in the vicinity of Debaltseve and went several kilometers deep into the territory of the DPR. The assault was repelled; however, it remains an important precedent, along with numerous examples of shellings of Donetsk, which have become increasingly frequent. In early July, a mine explosion killed a commander of a militia unit near Donetsk. There are many similar examples of destabilization in the area of the Ukrainian conflict – the situation has clearly aggravated. The ashes of crises smoldering under the sand of the Minsk agreements seem to have rekindled a new fire.

Photo: www.rbc.ua

However, given the current status of the Minsk process, it is the absence of armed hostilities in Donbass that is astonishing, not the skirmishes. The problem is that in late 2015, Minsk II was extended for another six months, until mid-2016. This new deadline has now passed, and measures to resolve the crisis mostly remain on paper. The Russian side refuses to participate in any in Normandy format negotiations at any level. The reason is simple: such meetings have become pointless, as Kyiv will not comply with the agreed terms. As they say in Russia, “seven do not wait for one,” but Ukraine manages to have its three Normandy partners wait for it. The result is Ms. Nuland’s futile shuttle-like trips between the four European capital cities.

The recent effort by the Assistant Secretary of State is understandable – Washington needs to maintain the status quo at least until the presidential election, scheduled to be held this fall. It would be naïve to think that Washington is unable to force Kyiv to adhere to Minsk II – in the past few years there have been frequent examples of “voluntary-compulsory decision-making” by European countries upon the recommendation of the United States, especially as far as their eastern policies were concerned. The sanctions became the most vivid, yet not the only example. If, following Nuland’s visits, Kyiv continues its signature imitation of active work to implement the Minsk agreements, then this pattern of behavior suits Washington. Indeed, otherwise all of the Minsk II provisions would have to be complied with, including the need to introduce in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions the right of language self-determination, participation of local self-government in the appointment of the heads of prosecutors’ offices and courts based on local authorities’ decisions, etc. In the current context, this scenario would look like an obvious defeat of the U.S. in Ukraine. This obviousness might entail a failure for Washington democrats at the November election.

Anyway, reneging on the Minsk agreements, which appear to be so inconvenient both for Ukraine and the U.S., is not the best option, since military operations resume – the developments in Donbass in the last few weeks show that there is sufficient potential for hostilities. Apparently, in this scenario, Washington will not be able to resolve another crisis on the planet. Does it mean that the opponent of the democrats in the presidential race does have the point when he calls for focusing on internal issues instead of getting involved in foreign political undertakings? American voters should not be encouraged to ask themselves this question ahead of the ballot day, hence the decision worthy of Solomon – to maintain the status quo, even though there is a risk that the situation in Donbas may spin out of control, as it happened recently.

Moscow must be aware of this logic and is therefore not eager to participate in new Normandy format meetings until current U.S. administration leaves the office and opens up room for dialogue. The only problem is whether the Minsk II freeze is strong enough to hold out on the Ukrainian frontline until November.