The standoff ended with the reported retreat of Ukrainian forces from Debaltseve, but the situation in the zone of conflict remains shaky and unpredictable.
Dmirty Polikanov, Vice-President of the PIR-Center, an independent think-tank (studio guest), Borislav Korkodelovich, independent political analyst (Belgrade), Chris Shipler, American political commentator.
Andrew Korybko: It seems like the game changer wasn’t just Minsk-2, but Debaltseve. What do you think about that?
Dmirty Polikanov: I would say, yes, because from the military point of view it was important for the rebels and the southeastern Ukraine to finish up their operation, and to actually ensure the surrender of a significant part of the Ukrainian forces. So, from a military and moral point of view, it was important for them to complete this operation before starting the ceasefire. And right now, they say that the rebels started withdrawing their heavy weapons from the line that divides the forces. So, I think that right now, since all the tasks are completed, the parties will very slowly start the implementation of the Minsk-2 agreements.
Sergei Strokan: The Russian Foreign Minister explained that already during the Minsk talks Russia was pointing to the problem of Debaltseve. And our Western partners tried to just scale it down. So, this problem was not taken seriously in Minsk, and it exploded.
Dmirty Polikanov: Absolutely! I think it was President Putin who actually pointed out that the issue of Debaltseve should be talked seriously, and that it will be a problem from the point of view of the implementation of the ceasefire arrangements. However, the Ukrainian side said that there forces were not encircled by the rebels.
Sergei Strokan: Do I get it right that this was on the territory of the self-proclaimed republic?
Dmirty Polikanov: Yes! This was kind of an assault ground for the Ukrainian army on the territory of the republics, and it was important for the rebels to make the line smoother and drive back the Ukrainian artillery and other forces from this point. I think it is also quite important to say that Russia is sometimes blamed for violating the Minsk-2 agreements, but actually Russia is not a party to the conflict. Russia is one of the mediators and this status has been clearly stated in the declaration after the negotiations in Minsk.
Sergei Strokan: This reminds me of a long discussion where the keys to the Ukrainian settlement are. Some are saying that the keys are in Brussels, some are saying that the keys are in Washington, some are saying that the keys are in Moscow.
Dmirty Polikanov: I would say that the keys are in Washington. I mean, clearly, because it is obvious that most of the things that the Ukrainian authorities do right now, they do them in close coordination with Washington. And if we take into account that most of the harsh statements concerning Ukraine came out of Washington as well, it is clear that the keys to the settlement lie there.
Sergei Strokan: Regarding the peace keepers that Ukraine all of a sudden started to talk about. Russia voiced its reservations, but, basically, the very idea was not denied. The devil is in the details, what are they?
Dmirty Polikanov: I would say that there is no other solution, but the peace keepers. And I think it was actually the representatives of Donetsk and Lugansk who like two or three weeks ago also mentioned the idea of peace keepers. The details are important. So, it should be the UN mandated peace keepers, of course. And it would be very good if these peace keepers come from the neutral countries. There are many peace keepers from – I don’t know – Kenya, India, Bangladesh and some other countries that are not related to Europe. And I think it is important for all the parties to ensure their impartiality. And the third thing is where they should be stationed. And it is clear that the peace keepers should be stationed to divide the conflicting parties, and not to control the Russian-Ukrainian border.
Sergei Strokan: But the Ukrainians are saying they should be the EU peace keepers. Why Russia can’t put up with this?
Dmirty Polikanov: Taking into account the European involvement in the conflict, it won’t be very wise to have the European peace keepers only. Then, it should be a force which should include the Russian peace keepers as well.
Andrew Korybko: It reminds me of what’s been happening in Yugoslavia. What is your comment on that? Is Ukraine Balkanizing?
Borislav Korkodelovich: I think there is a quite strong possibility for that, at least for a frozen conflict for the next several years. What we have here in the area of the former Yugoslavia is that still we don’t have the definite borders between the new entities. And despite the assurances from the main actors in the international community that there won’t be any new drawing of borders, I can’t say for sure that it will be so.
So, if you look though the recent history of the former Yugoslavia, I can say that we will see, unfortunately, a prolonged conflict in Ukraine. I don’t think that anybody can guarantee that the outcome will be this or that.
Andrew Korybko: From the US perspective, does it truly welcome the ceasefire or does it have any misgivings about it?
Chris Shipler: I can only speak from a point of observation in terms of political rhetoric and what I read in the newspapers, and things like that, and also what I look at coming out of the State Department. Not so much from Obama, he is hard to read on this. I think he is playing a very fine line here, waiting for the Republicans to take over so that they can go full board on Russia. But no, I don’t think they welcome the ceasefire at all, based on what I see here in America.
Andrew Korybko: It makes me think that one of the possible reasons that could be is that the US is always trying to push NATO integration. It’s probably been the most top issue in the entire crisis and it doesn’t seem like it is going away. Do you think that NATO can play some type of a role after Minsk-2, perhaps, as the peace keeper that Poroshenko’s been talking about?
Chris Shipler: I think that’s an interesting question and you can go a couple of different directions with that. First of all, based on what I've heard, I think NATO’s goal is to recreate the Cold War, to create the Great Wall. I think, geopolitically, the biggest issue is that NATO is the war machine economic arm. In other words, they want to split the EU from Russia from an economic standpoint, because it always comes back to economics or resources no matter how you look at it.
So, when you look at Ukraine, from my perspective it was a gateway country. If you think about the China’s Silk Road, the EU, Putin’s vision of the Central Asia and the trade deals in Europe, and energy, and things like that. And Ukraine was that doorway between the East and the West. And I think that literally the goal was to break that relationship and to back NATO up against Russia's southern flank.
If you actually stand back and get rid of the emotional content or your sense of patriotism towards whatever country you belong in, if you just look at it as a game – this is a chess move to block the emergence of the BRICS platform.
Andrew Korybko: What is your prognosis here? Do you think that, given how important of a pivot Ukraine is for NATO and the US, that we are going to see a hot war or a cold peace, or, perhaps, something else – some type of a hybrid war, hybrid peace going on there?
Chris Shipler: Studying the eastern Ukrainians – the Russia-backed side of the country…and it isn’t just those Donetsk and Lugansk, it is other areas. When you look at the cultural strength of these people’s determination, I think we are going to end up in a very cold war between the eastern and western Ukraine. And I think that you are going to find the US playing there pretty aggressively.
And so, is it going to be a cold war, I think you are going to have hot spots continually. I don’t think Poroshenko can afford to back off with the violence, because he’s got that Right Sector i.e. – for lacking a better term – you know, nobody wants to use this word, but they are Nazis. And so, they don’t want to stop anything. They hate the Russians, they want to destroy them. So, there is a lot of politics in Ukraine going on here that can be played out.
I think Europe is scared to death. They are going to be stuck with the bill or have a hot war on their land, or on their border. I think Putin realizes that he is going to be not listened no matter what he does and it is going to cost him billions of dollars, because he can never abandon the people in the east. And I think the US will play that against each other constantly and any chance they can they will back a violent action.
