Tensions were high in Ukraine last week after armed pro-Russian groups seized control of a number of buildings in about 10 towns and cities across the eastern part of the country, which has large Russian-speaking communities.
The rebels are demanding greater autonomy or referendums on splitting from Ukraine. Just as an escalation of the crisis seemed inevitable, with the very real prospect of a Russian military invasion, a deal was reached in Geneva on Thursday between Russia, Ukraine, the US and the European Union to take steps to “de-escalate” the situation.
Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Andriy Deshchytsia, US Secretary of State John Kerry and EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said the agreement included the disbanding of all illegal military formations in Ukraine as well as an end to the occupation of buildings.
The deal also envisaged an amnesty for all anti-government protesters and talk of “inclusivity”, suggesting that the Russian-speaking areas of Ukraine could be granted more autonomy. The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) will monitor the agreement.
The ideal solution for Ukraine would be the Finnish model – EU membership but not in Nato
We still have to see how this deal will work out in practice and so far pro-Russian separatists in the eastern town of Donetsk have refused to leave the government building there. A spokesman for the rebels said the government in Kiev was “illegal” and therefore they would not end the occupation of the building until the Ukrainian government stepped down. This is hardly the basis for the implementation of the Geneva accord; if Russia is serious about respecting this deal, it should convince these separatists to do just that.
The US has now threatened tougher economic sanctions if Russia fails to abide by the new agreement to help de-escalate the crisis.
Throughout the week, armed militias passed through eastern Ukraine on armoured vehicles flying a Russian flag. It’s not yet clear whether the men are Russian soldiers or pro-Russian rebels, as just like in Crimea, all the men are wearing military uniforms without insignia. However, the US Defence Department’s top commander in Europe, General Philip Breedlove, was very clear about who he thinks these men were:
“It’s hard to fathom that groups of armed men in masks suddenly sprang forward from the population in eastern Ukraine and systematically began to occupy government facilities. It’s hard to fathom because it’s simply not true. What is happening in eastern Ukraine is a military operation that is well planned and organised and we assess that it is being carried out at the direction of Russia,” he said.
Matters have been made worse by the fact that over the past month Russian President Vladimir Putin has stationed about 40,000 troops on his country’s border with Ukraine, leading many military observers to warn that Moscow could be about to invade eastern Ukraine.
Earlier in the week Ukrainian troops and anti-terror military units began an operation to recapture areas seized by anti-government separatists; they were successful in some towns while others have remained in rebel hands due to the fact that pro-Russian civilians prevented the army from entering a number of towns and cities. Further military action by the Ukraine military has now been put on hold for the Easter weekend.
In the meantime, Nato announced new military measures in response to the situation, including more planes in the air, more ships at sea and more troop readiness on land, especially around the Baltic states. Two of the Nato Baltic states, Estonia and Latvia, after all, have sizeable Russian minorities and are understandably very concerned about the situation.
Despite the deal in Geneva, one cannot forget that Russia annexed Crimea last month, with the excuse of protecting Russian speakers, so Europe and the US must be well prepared for a similar scenario in eastern Ukraine.
Predicting how Putin will react and what his real intentions are is obviously difficult. However, so far, he seems to be following the exact same pattern as in Crimea; at least until the Geneva accord was reached.
It is clear that Putin has no grand plan to reconstruct the Soviet Union. That of course would be absolute madness (and impossible), but he does suffer from being paranoid about his country’s borders (a centuries-old Russia fixation) and believes his country has the right to ‘protect’ what he calls the “Russian world”.
While Putin has every right to demand that Russian speakers outside Russia are treated equally before the law, he has no right to invent scenarios where such citizens are being discriminated against or treated badly as a pretext to invading the country.
The reaction of the US and EU to Russia’s annexation of Crimea was mild, but both blocs have made it clear, rightly so, that any attempt to destabilise eastern Ukraine would lead to harsh economic sanctions against Moscow.
It is true that such action would inflict an amount of pain on the West’s economies, but the Russian economy – Moscow’s weak point – would no doubt suffer much more. Furthermore, sanctions against individuals should be extended to top Russian government and military officials.
At the same time the West needs to pressure the government in Kiev to commit itself to further devolution in the regions and full respect for the rights of Russian speakers. While Nato is right to take measures in response to this crisis, the alliance should make it clear that membership for Ukraine is not an option and that it acknowledges that Russia does have legitimate security concerns in Ukraine.
The ideal solution for Ukraine would be the Finnish model – EU membership but not in Nato – as well as greater autonomy for the various regions. For this to happen, Russia needs to stop fomenting trouble in Ukraine, declare its full respect for Ukrainian territorial integrity (the two sides can agree to disagree over Crimea, which Russia will never return) and engage in direct talks with the government of Ukraine, as well as recognising it.
After the Geneva deal was reached, US President Barack Obama called the deal promising, but said the question remained whether Russia would now use its influence – previously exerted in what he called a “disruptive way” – to restore order in Ukraine. That is the real question, and the ball is really in Moscow’s court.