It’s
a Waiting Game in Donbass. What Comes Next?
It
is clear that the West has started an endgame against Russia. How
will Russia respond?
Jon
Helleweg
The geopolitical situation turns worse as Finland prepares to host NATO bases
13
April, 2015
Reflecting
on my visit in Donetsk last week, what strikes me the most is the
total absence of Russia, in every respect. Obviously there are no
signs of Russian military hardware or personnel; but not only that,
Russia does not participate in building Donetsk statehood in any way.
Russia has not even moved to ease the economic blockade imposed by
the Ukrainians, which it could do by recognizing customs documents
issued by Donetsk authorities. The only Russian presence is the
humanitarian aid that is periodically hauled in by white truck
convoys.
The
impression one gets is that Russia is fully committed to doing
everything from its own side to ensure the implementation of the
Minsk agreements, at any cost, and using its influence on the
people’s militia to make them abide as well.
Once
again, Russia has chosen the legalistic approach by adhering to
agreements. Many are baffled by this approach, knowing that the other
party, that is, the West and its puppet government in Kiev, could not
care less. Certainly Russia must know that it cannot impress the West
in any way with such respect for agreements. Whatever it does, it
will continuously be accused of breach of agreements and incursions
into Ukraine.
It
seems to me that Russia is motivated by other concerns than the
predictable Western reaction. Primarily, Russia seems to be
interested in actually seeing the Minsk accords through, and secondly
in establishing its case in front of the larger global community,
rather than just the West. Russia’s real friends, China, the other
BRICS countries, the many countries of Asia, South America and Africa
must be convinced that Russia wants peace.
It
should be noted, though, that the Minsk accords do not actually
impose any obligations on Russia; for Russia it is just a question of
refraining from actions that could be seen to fuel separatism. The
key to the implementation of the peace plan is with Kiev. Cessation
of military hostilities and the withdrawal of heavy weaponry is
imposed on both Kiev and the rebel governments. The Donetsk and
Lugansk troops have implemented these conditions for their part, but
the Kiev military keeps attacking the frontlines and heavily shelling
Donetsk. I experienced this first hand visiting the district near the
airport with a group of journalists last Thursday. There was a
constant rumbling of artillery shelling in the background.
Apart
from the military withdrawal, all of the obligations are squarely and
solely on Kiev, which must make constitutional reforms to grant
autonomy to parts of Donetsk and Lugansk and pass other legal acts as
outlined in the Minsk protocol. So far, Kiev is in blatant breach of
these obligations and there does not seem to be any positive will to
abide by them. The deadline for passing the constitutional reforms
according to the Ukrainian constitutional procedures is about to
close.
This
is a waiting game. Russia and the Donbass authorities must sit out
all the Minsk deadlines. Which of the interested parties want to see
the ceasefire accords fail? If the ceasefire fails, as it likely
will, then the Donetsk and Lugansk republics will take the final
steps towards statehood and Russia will be legally free to support
them.
In
the meanwhile dark clouds of war have been gathering in Europe. The
security system has considerably deteriorated, especially in
developments on each side of the Baltic Sea. This might push Russia
to reconsider its role in Donbass. The governments of Poland,
Lithuania and Estonia are asking for more NATO troops in their areas
under the cover of hysterical fears of an imminent Russian invasion.
On the other side of the Baltic shore, Finland’s media have gone
into overdrive whipping up war hysteria, providing the government
cover in its efforts to invite NATO troops to Finland. In great
secrecy and in apparent breach of the constitution, Finland signed
with NATO in Septermber 2014 a so-called Host Nation Support accord,
which in practice allies Finland with NATO.
At
the same time Sweden also gave up its formal neutrality with signing
a similar agreement with NATO. The accord spells out directly that
the purpose of the agreement is to create the procedures for
establishing NATO bases in Finland in order to support a NATO
military buildup. Finland’s political leadership, from President
Niinisto to Prime Minister Stubb and Defense Minister Haglund, have
gradually during the year ramped up their aggressive rhetoric and
provocative statements against Russia. A couple of days ago Haglund
signed a joint article with four other Nordic (Scandinavian) defense
ministers in a Swedish daily advocating the need for the Nordic
countries to intensify common defense efforts against “Russian
aggression”.
Only
public opinion, which is vehemently opposed to NATO membership, has
so far kept the Finnish elite from applying for direct membership,
but no doubt it is only a question of time before the needed excuse
will be invented to override public opposition after the country’s
parliamentary elections of April 19. And indeed the purpose of these
constant provocations from Finland’s political leadership and the
press is precisely to inflame the situation so as to produce the
casus belli to go for full NATO membership.
There
seems to be no turning back. As a result Finland’s 1,340 km border
is now the longest direct border between Russia and NATO, again
posing a direct military threat on St. Petersburg and the route all
the way to Moscow.
It
is clear that the West has started an endgame against Russia and
Russia must reply at some point. As more troops will be needed in the
North, I do not see how Russia could let Donbass fail.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.