Minsk-3 died: on political and geo-political consequences of the ceasefire agreement wreck

Wrecking of the ceasefire agreement will become the moment of truth for the EU: to further delay the choice of ally — the US or Russia — in Ukrainian context will be very difficult.

Thus Minsk-3 has practically passed away, having repeated the fate of the previous negotiations between Kiev and the rebel Republics.

None of the provisions of the accord had been fully implemented, and its political part is outright non-implementable due to Ukraine being ruled from outside and also the refusal of Kiev to recognize the Republics and the inability of constructive position of Ukrainian parliament in the issue of settlement.

Therefore at the moment everything boils down to the question: who is going to initiate the resumption of the hostilities or act as a provocateur? The People’s Militia will  benefit if Kiev is the first to start shooting, as in this case Europe will be disarmed and lose the pretext for introduction of stricter sanctions against Russia, which is considered a participant of Ukrainian civil war by Brussels and Berlin.

The opinion of the US is obvious: Moscow is initially guilty of everything, it’s fault lies already in the facts of its existence as a state. Hence the USA will do its best to force the EU to apply stricter sanctions. We will still have to see if it succeeds in this. Anyway, the UE will be divided in regard to this issue: even if Berlin admits Kiev’s fault in disruption of the ceasefire, Warsaw and Baltic States, which have become American underground in Europe, will all the same blame Russia.

That is why the tactics of the Republics amounts to the impeccable implementation of the Minsk Agreement, which, according to Moscow’s logic, must clear Russian from accusations in wrecking the Agreement.

Therefore Kiev has to initiate things, and it in turns withdraws the equipment and artillery, and returns it to the initial positions, claiming that the conditions of the ceasefire are impossible to achieve. The position of the OSCE is neutral: it registers everything, but does not present the conclusive opinion and does not blame anyone, choosing to avoid answering the questions in regard to the adherence to the agreement.

The OSCE stand is understandable, as it represents the EU, and Europeans have not decided in front of whose tanks they will throw themselves — Russian or American — and what position to take, hence they prefer to procrastinate, delaying the decision making. Nevertheless the EU succeeded in urging Barack Obama to give up the plan of open supplies of armaments to Kiev. The tactics of delay in decision making worked, although temporarily. Washington is simply waiting for the moment, when the ceasefire is totally wrecked, and then will resume pressure on the EU, remaining under American protectorate.

That is why wrecking of the agreement will become the moment of truth for the EU: to further delay taking the decision on Ukraine will be extremely difficult.

It is obvious that the resumption of hostilities will lead to

1^st: Kiev will lose control over a part of its territory and face several new “cauldrons”;

2^nd: Ukrainian Army might cease to exist;

3^rd: Poroshenko’s positions will weaken;

4^th: Kiev will lose the monopoly on the use of force.

The last factor is the most important one, as in this case Kiev will cease to act as the sole representative of Ukraine at the new rounds of talks. However, Kiev in any case loses the monopoly on the use of force: the new round of property redistribution has already led to the start of mobilization and increase in the number of troopers in the battalions of the Khaganate of Benya Kolomoyskiy. Therefore, no new negotiations are possible without Kolomoyskiy’s representative. However it will result in the acknowledgement of the fact that Ukraine is not united even formally. Will the parties agree with such situation — is not clear.

It is not clear either, who is going to urge Moscow to call a new meeting of negotiation group in Minsk. If Merkel and Hollande flew to Moscow he previous time, and long-term ceasefire did not work, who will have to fly next time? Obama? Washington will never take such a move.

The tone of the statements of the Heads of the DPR and LPR shows that they are convinced in absolute non-negotiability of Kiev and next time they can refuse to participate in the talks. In fact, Moscow has long been aware of the inability of Ukraine to fulfill the obligations; it only took part in the negotiations in order to convince the EU in its good intentions.

Therefore, there is a chance that in case of resumption of the war the EU will stay aside and its opinion won’t be taken into account that is the war will go on without long-term ceasefires and Berlin and Paris will stay away from the process of negotiations. Thus EU will cease to be an object of geo-politics, even if its freedom of will had been limited and turn into an object of geo-political contest of the USA and Russia.

Ivan Lizun, political analyst