By Vestnik Kavkaza
Even though neither politicians nor experts expected a breakthrough from talks between the heads of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan and the EU representatives on August 26th in Minsk, the majority of political scientists assessed the Minsk meeting as a positive step toward settlement of the situation in the region. All sides agree that the format of negotiations should continue. Even though resolution of political and economic disputes between Ukraine and the EU and Russia was the focus, Russian analysts saw hidden results of the meeting.
Alexander Gushching, the deputy head of Post-Soviet Countries Department of the Russian State University for Humanities, is sure that importance of the Minsk talks is that “even though the EU has never showed its interest in such a format as CU-EU, now the three countries of the Customs Union are recognized as a party which participates in discussion of key questions.” On the other hand, Gushchin says, there was a packet discussion which touched on not only settlement of the Ukrainian crisis: “It is well-known that in diplomacy it is easier to discuss a packet of issues, as it enables the sides to make concessions in one issue and achieve one’s goals in another issue. There are certain hopes that the dialogue can continue in this format or in a bilateral format.”
Alexander Gushchin thinks that the other significant result of the meeting is a step toward legitimacy of the current Ukrainian regime by Russia, and it is very important for Petro Poroshenko: “Before the elections on May 25th Russia actually hadn’t recognized the elections. Later, Russia kept silent. And the fact of the meeting (they shook hands and sat in front of each other) means a certain step toward legitimacy of the current Ukrainian regime by Russia. However, we cannot expect a settlement of the situation in the south-east soon.”
Moreover, Gushchin considers the Minsk talks from the point of view of the internal political situation for Poroshenko. “In October the parliamentary elections will take place in Ukraine. Poroshenko and his team seem to be moderate figures in comparison with their political opponents. Poroshenko tries, on the one hand, to unite the nation, on the other hand, he attracts certain supporters of moderate forces by the fact of the talks, who have more moderate views on the policy in the east,” Alexander Gishchin says.
Meanwhile, the political scientist draws attention to the fact that these talks revealed the incoherence of the positions inside the Customs Union. “It is no surprise, especially taking into account the foreign political line of Belarus, which could have been seen during the last year. And statements by the Kazakhstan President Nazarbayev and our President Vladimir Putin on re-exporting show that there is no political unity on the whole complex of problems inside the Customs Union. Moreover, the CU countries and their elites have no intention of fighting with the West because of the Ukrainian crisis. And Russia has to remember this,” Gishchin is sure.
Vladimir Zharikhin, the deputy head of the CIS Countries Institute, also thinks that one of the unexpected results of the Minsk meeting are disputes between members of the CU. He notes that Minsk and Astana have always stressed that the Eurasian and Customs Unions should touch on economic integration only. “But life shows that separation between politics and economics is artificial. And now purely economic issues are splitting members of the Eurasian Union for political reasons. They want to avoid sanctions and to preserve good relations. But are they ready to do this at expense of breaking the economic union with Russia? They face a very difficult dilemma at the moment. This is a dilemma not only for Kiev, which is conducting a war, not only for the EU, which is close to the Ukrainian conflict, not only for Russia, which is responsible for Russians who live in Ukraine. Seemingly distant Kazakhstan and seemingly neutral Belarus will have to make their political choice as well,” Zharikhin thinks.
