By Vestnik Kavkaza
Last week Vladimir Putin met the President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko at the Milan summit forum ASEM, the President of France Francois Hollande and the German Chancellor Angela Merkel joined them there. As a result of the talks, it was announced that moderate progress was achieved on the gas issue; however, Ukraine and Russia should continue gas talks to improve the progress.
Alexander Gusev, the head of the Center for Strategic Development of the CIS countries of the RAS Institute of Europe, thinks that in terms of a settlement of the political situation in Ukraine the top level meeting was important: “The sides kept to their own views, but the talks were constructive and pragmatic. They reached a certain level of consent, but it wasn’t registered on paper. At the same time, there is an opportunity for a dialogue in the future. I think it will be organized in the very near future. Future talks will be determined by economic opportunities of Ukraine. No one will help them. Russia said it wouldn’t help Ukraine, i.e. Russia wouldn’t give credits to Ukraine. Russia didn’t sign documents on reducing prices in the winter and summer periods. So I have ambiguous feelings about the meeting in Milan.”
Alexander Gushchin, the deputy head of the Department for Post-Soviet Countries of the RSUH, noted the importance of Russian-American relations in a settlement of the Ukrainian crisis: “The key to a settlement of the Ukrainian crisis lies in Moscow and Washington, whether Ukraine is an object or a subject or not. We observe a crisis in the whole post-Soviet system in international relations which was established in 1991; and at the moment there are no ways out of the crisis… Until there is no framework agreement between Washington and Moscow, I think it is impossible to speak about serious breakthroughs in international relations and turning to a constructive approach.”
Gushchin also thinks that the gas issue was the main topic at the summit: “Russia also accepted concessions, and the European side knows well that it is a recipient, it depends on Russia. But Russia depends on imports, as it is impossible to lose European exporters. Of course, in the long-term perspective, Europe will try to find alternative ways of receiving energy resources. Russia does the same. We can see the agreements that are being signed with China. It is easier for Russia to do so, as the basis of its exports is energy resources rather than industrial goods. But European consumers are also important for Moscow. And this could be a basis for pragmatic agreements. From this point of view, either Moscow or the West could reject ideological layers and return the foreign political vector to pragmatic grounds.”
As for normalization of the situation in the southeast of Ukraine, Gushchin thinks that “the status issue has not been settled. Probably Moscow wanted to shift the issue to an internal Ukrainian platform, so that Kiev would negotiate to the current leaders of Donetsk and Lugansk. If we interpret the Minsk agreements literally, the territories should stay inside Ukraine on the basis of a broad autonomous status or federalization. But the current leaders of the southeast stand against it. They want independence. The issue will be frozen at least until winter.”
The expert thinks it is inappropriate to compare Novorossia and Transdniestria: “When Transdniestria separated from the USSR, its political elite had a different character, there were different military actions and a different level of military destructions. Transdniestria was an autonomous subject, while Donetsk and Lugansk are not.”
Gushchin thinks Ukraine will have to undergo a long period of talks: “Spring will show whether there will be escalation of tension or a format will be found, that will satisfy Kiev, Donetsk elites, and Moscow. At the moment I see no progress in the direction.”
