The Ukrainian conflict: what is the difference between Washington and Brussels?

By Vestnik Kavkaza

Yesterday the summit of Vladimir Putin, Angela Merkel, Francois Hollande and Petro Poroshenko took place in Minsk. At the final stage of discussion of the Ukrainian situation, Heidi Tagliavini, the OSCE's special envoy in the Contact Group on a settlement of the situation in Ukraine, joined them. As a result of the talks, which continued for 16 hours, the leaders of Russia, Ukraine, France and Germany adopted a declaration on support for measures on fulfilling the Minsk agreements. The US authorities have already stated that they are ready to discuss the possibility of softening sanctions against Moscow, if it fulfils the Minsk agreements to the full extent.

Meanwhile, the head of the State Duma Committee for International Affairs, Alexei Pushkov, thinks that the new round of economic sanctions from the EU directly depends on the results of the Minsk talks: “The previous sanctions will be prolonged for some time; but a new round of sanctions won’t be launched if the talks are positive. The EU made a big mistake when, after the Minsk agreements in September, they launched economic sanctions. It appeared that they didn’t care whether there were agreements or not. And Europe criticized the people who made the decision a lot. Many European politicians admitted that it was a mistake. If sanctions are launched automatically, obviously Moscow has no motivation to participate in talks and the chances of successful results become much lower. I think this time the EU won’t make such a mistake.”

Pushkov spoke about his speech at the European Parliament in Strasbourg: “They criticized us a lot; but 20-25% of the participants of the discussion thought that Russia couldn’t be called an aggressor, the European Parliament had no right to judge Russia, and that sanctions were absolutely senseless and counterproductive, as they damaged Europe itself. Thus, there is no united view on the issue in the European Parliament. The positions of the EU and the USA are coordinated, but still we can see different accents. The US treats the prospects of the Minsk talks skeptically. They supported them formally, as they had no alternative and they couldn’t say that they supported war. Thus, they supported the talks, but they said that the talks wouldn’t produce any results, and the Ukrainian military machine should be strengthened. It means the US is aimed at war and the extension of military activities. European leaders, except for some radically pro-American states, are aimed at a political settlement. Hollande warns that if the situation gets out of control and a total war starts, Europe will suffer, while the US will be far away from it. And Europe understands this clearly. For the US, it is a geopolitical issue. For Europe, it is an issue of practical existence. It is a direct question of its security, whether the security is stable or is undermined by direct interference in the Ukrainian crisis by foreign forces.”

Commenting on the prospects of American arms supplies to Ukraine, Pushkov predicts: “At first they send arms. Modern arms are quite complicated. And they will send military aides, who will teach Ukrainian soldiers and officers to use the arms. Then they will send special units to protect the military aides. Then, they will have to send troops to protect the special units, especially if there are victims among the Americans, and this cannot be excluded in war. And we will get direct intervention by the USA and later NATO, as the Europeans will have to support the Americans in such a situation. That’s how the Vietnamese war started. The US sent a lot of weapons and arms to the South Vietnamese regime. Then they sent their aides, who taught the South Vietnamese army how to use them. And then they sent troops, and the war lasted for 9 years. In the end, the USA lost it.”

According to Pushkov, Europe, especially Angela Merkel, is worried about the situation: “The Germans don’t want to fight. The German postwar doctrine requires settlement of all issues by economic and political instruments. And they achieve this successfully. Germany became a leading European country without relying on military means. Germany doesn’t want to participate in any military activities or direct support for the war in Ukraine. The USA doesn’t exclude such a possibility. This is the difference. Even though Merkel went to Washington ahead of the Minsk summit and agreed her positions with Obama, we can still see differences in their accents. And the difference enables us to treat the EU as a priority partner in the situation. The USA has chosen the path of a cold war with Russia firmly; they have declared a policy of isolation of Russia, a restrictive policy. In fact, it is a policy undermining the Russian economy and Russian political power. We have nothing to talk about with the USA. At the same time, we live on one continent with the EU, and it realizes that we have common security, as well as other problems. And Europe will be the first to suffer from these problems. I think Merkel and Hollande are much more promising partners for us than the USA.”

Touching on the non-participation of the US in the process of settlement of the Ukrainian conflict, Pushkov stated: “The American President took a distant position from the problem deliberately. He laid the responsibility on his allies in NATO, i.e. the EU leaders. He has too many foreign political failures. I think he stepped away from the problem deliberately, even though he is invisibly present at the talks. Hollande and Merkel consider the American position, and the position is firm support for Kiev. I think the US is actively working with Poroshenko as well. He agrees his positions with the Americans.”

Answering a question on concerns that the conflict in Donbas will turn into a frozen scenario, like in Transdniestria or Nagorno-Karabakh, Pushkov expressed the view that “the situation in Transdniestria and the situation in the east of Ukraine are different. In Transdniestria, no people are being killed, facilities and houses are not being destroyed, there are no humanitarian disasters or refugees. I think the main thing is to cease fire and stop military activities, separate conflicting sides. And a political process can be started on that basis. Firstly, it will prevent new deaths and new destruction. Secondly, no political agreements are possible without a ceasefire. When the New York Times criticized Merkel and Hollande for bringing “a plan of a second Transdniestria” to Moscow, I think it was silly and aggressive criticism. The USA is not able to suggest anything, except for arming Ukraine, i.e. extension of military activities. Merkel and Hollande tried to take the situation out of a military dead-end.”