Print Читать на русском
Rate this article
(no votes)
 (0 votes)
Share this article

On 20th of February Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC) together with the FES Regional Office for Cooperation and Peace in Europe (Vienna) held the presentation on the outcomes of the project "Foresight Ukraine. Four scenarios for the development of Ukraine". The members of working group: Andrey Kortunov – Director General of RIAC, Oleksiy Semeniy, director of Institute of Global Transformations (Kiev), Reinhard Krumm – the head of the Regional Office for Cooperation and Peace in Europe (Vienna) and Simon Weis, research officer of the Regional office for corporation and peace in Europe (Vienna) presented each scenario.

On 20th of February Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC) together with the FES Regional Office for Cooperation and Peace in Europe (Vienna) held the presentation on the outcomes of the project "Foresight Ukraine. Four scenarios for the development of Ukraine". The members of working group: Andrey Kortunov – Director General of RIAC, Oleksiy Semeniy, director of Institute of Global Transformations (Kiev), Reinhard Krumm – the head of the Regional office for corporation and peace in Europe (Vienna) and Simon Weis, research officer of the FES Regional Office for Cooperation and Peace in Europe (Vienna) presented each scenario.

The experts claimed that despite the four main scenarios for the development of the country the key problem that defines the choice of one or another option is the domestic dynamics of Ukrainian society and state development. This means that the choice between "ascendance" and "confrontation" depends on Ukrainian civil society and its ability to be strong and independent enough to defend its right for development, prosperity and evolution. This choice also depends on the ability of Ukrainian state institutions to get used to the goals of the country's development

Nevertheless, the attention was also paid to the impact of external factors to the situation in Ukraine. The participants expressed their views concerning the possible influence of the U.S., E.U., certain European countries (Germany, Russia) on the internal processes in the country. However, the report's authors consistently defended the opinion that the most important factor of changes inside and outside Ukraine is not the position of external players but the domestic situation in the country. Such an approach, according to the authors’ perspective, makes the four proposed scenarios unique.

Moreover, during the discussion the authors and guests repeatedly touched the topic of the Minsk process. The report’s authors shared the idea according to which Minsk format has already reached its maximum - the guarantee of cease-fire in the Eastern Ukraine. The further development of negotiations and problem-solving process, they said, requires the upgrading of Minsk process. However several guests disagreed with this idea, pointing out that Minsk agreements were signed up by Ukraine, meaning that Ukraine accepted the terms of these agreements. Anyway, all experts agreed that the process of conflict resolution on Donbass needs to be facilitated in order to continue active negotiations between opponents.

Besides the discussion on various issues related to the situation in Ukraine, the participants expressed their wishes regarding the further work on Ukraine foresight. For instance, there was a suggestion that such scenarios could be illustrated by historical examples, interesting cases or statistics. Other guests advised to pay additional attention to the issues of unique economic reality in post-soviet countries. According to their point of view, Ukraine needs not financial but intellectual aid because only through this kind of help socio-economic difficulties that Ukraine has faced can be understood and overcome.

Despite the fact that sometimes opinions expressed during the discussion were completely opposite, the majority of guests were satisfied with the presented report. They emphasized that such works contribute to the de-escalation of situation in Ukraine, to constructive discussion and finally to overcoming the crisis in Ukraine.

Broadcast

Rate this article
(no votes)
 (0 votes)
Share this article

Poll conducted

  1. Korean Peninsula Crisis Has no Military Solution. How Can It Be Solved?
    Demilitarization of the region based on Russia-China "Dual Freeze" proposal  
     36 (35%)
    Restoring multilateral negotiation process without any preliminary conditions  
     27 (26%)
    While the situation benefits Kim Jong-un's and Trump's domestic agenda, there will be no solution  
     22 (21%)
    Armed conflict still cannot be avoided  
     12 (12%)
    Stonger deterrence on behalf of the U.S. through modernization of military infrastructure in the region  
     4 (4%)
    Toughening economic sanctions against North Korea  
     2 (2%)
 
For business
For researchers
For students