Is the Minsk II Agreement Dead?

Despite ongoing border skirmishes which are increasing, not decreasing in number, the Ukrainian conflict seems to have been frozen. The world has moved on to cover more ‘important’ stories, but the killing and bombing goes on.

Dr Ammon Cheskin, Lecturer in Nationalism and Identity with a focus on Russian Foreign Policy at the University of Glasgow, and Xavier Moreau, editor at Stratpol (French Centre for geopolitical strategy) and author of 'Ukraine — why France is wrong' discuss this issue in some depth.

The key issue is whether President Poroshenko signed up to something that actually can’t be implemented when he signed Minsk II agreement in February 2015. Xavier Moreau said: ‘President Poroshenko signed up to Minsk II because he had no choice. He wanted to save his army in Debaltsevo, because there was a lot of ammunition and people there, because it was a very strategic place for him. But he never had the intention of implementing the Minsk agreement. That was clear, the day when the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Klimkin came back to parliament, and said that giving autonomy to DNR and LNR was just advice and not an obligation.’

Dr Cheskin commented: ‘We should also look at LNR and DNR’s behaviour, because once the agreement was signed, they did not adhere to it, they said that Debaltsevo is not in the Minsk agreement, which is the territory they were fighting for at the time, so there was flagrant disregard for the agreement on both sides.’ The first point in the agreement — namely that of a ceasefire has not been fully implemented.

The holding of elections in Eastern Ukraine, another point in the Minsk agreements, is another bone of contention. Both sides fundamentally disagree, to Dr Cheskin, ‘it’s all about democratic standards being in place. As soon as we have observers in place and we can verify the results of the local elections, we can talk to you. Russia doesn’t find this acceptable, neither do the separatists. Unfortunately I agree with Xavier, I don’t see how this agreement will ever work.’ Xavier pointed out that elections have actually already being held in Kharkov and almost all the big cities, and in all, opposition candidates were elected. ‘If that is the case,’ Dr Cheskin says, ‘why not allow democratic, independent elections with independent observers, and the Ukrainians would have to negotiate with these people because these are the terms that they have set?’ Xavier then added that in fact the DNR, LNR and Russia actually have no problem with OSCE monitoring of elections in Eastern Ukraine. Unfortunately elections have been postponed until November 2016, and it is by no means certain that they will take place then, so that point on the Minsk Agreement is also invalid.

The next point on the Minsk Agreement concerns decentralisation, or the Federalisation of East Ukraine. Has this happened? Dr Cheskin said, the clear answer is no.

‘The simple reason is that there is such domestic opposition, this can be seen by the huge amount of dissatisfaction in Ukrainian society after the government tried to pass a law granting special status for Donbass in March 2015’.

Xavier Moreau however didn’t think the issue was public opinion but more to do with the leaders in charge:

‘In my opinion the Ukrainian people want peace – most of them. The problem is the Rada. Inside the Rada you have about 20-25 war leaders who are dangerous people, who have people with weapons available to start any unrest and so it’s impossible to have a constitutional majority to implement this constitutional reform and this is a reason why Kiev can’t implement this Minsk agreement.’

In the second part of the programme the discussion widened to include the sanctions against Russia, which do not seem to be working. Xavier said the sanctions are part of wider war against Russia by the United States, to include Russia in Europe. Dr Cheskin reacted to this, stating that this view as being overly simple, coming straight from the Kremlin. ‘Of course we can put some blame on the EU and the US and see this as a geopolitical conflict, but the idea that America needs a war is too simplistic. It is not in America’s interest for there to be a war happening, it is in America’s interests for Ukraine to be weak, you could argue that, and it is in America's interests to limit Russian influence in Ukraine, I think you could say that, but it is not in America's interests for there to be a war in Ukraine, that’s absurd. I think it is a frozen conflict, and this is depressing.’

Is Ukraine able to afford to rebuild Donbass, if it was able to? Xavier said: ‘The key date is 2019, that is when IMF loans come due, there is $2 billion outstanding for gas transit fees to Europe to be paid, and there will be presidential and parliamentary elections. In my opinion, the conflict is frozen until the end of 2018, beginning of 2019. I think then you will have a more democratic parliament in Ukraine and complete bankruptcy of the Ukrainian economy. They will have no choice but to recreate some good relations with Russia.’ Dr Cheskin said that it would also be difficult for Russia to take on the reconstruction of East Ukraine, because its economy is stretched at the moment, with the conflict in Syria, a weakened economy and support for other frozen conflicts. Although Moreau counteracted this by stating that the sanctions have not affected the Russian economy in the way reported and in fact have greatly boosted agriculture and other industries.

The way forward according to Xavier is for Ukraine to decentralise and for an end to sanctions against Russia. According to Dr Cheskin, Russia is key to solving the current situation in Ukraine.