Tag: Ukraine
Declining, but not disappearing
Yesterday’s discussion of Russia: A Test for Transatlantic Unity at the German Marshall Fund’s Transatlantic Academy made for a grim morning. The European and American Russia scholars were pleased that the West has maintained a coherent and unified response on Donbas, including greater support for front line allies, unity on sanctions and support for Kiev. But they worry that sanctions will fray or even collapse in 2017 and that Ukraine is not making the reform progress it urgently requires.
Nor do they see any sign that Russia is prepared to deliver anything serious in Ukraine. Russian officials view the US as malevolently and incompetently denying Russia its rightful role in the world by limiting its natural sphere of influence. They believe the West is decadent and unwilling or unable to exert itself on behalf of Ukraine, while denying that Russia is directly involved there. Putin in particular is banking on the West weakening.
The only positive sign anyone reported was a palpable desire by Moscow officials to “engage” with Americans, which is difficult as they refuse even to discuss the war in Donbas. If Moscow wants progress, the Americans think it needs to deliver something on the Minsk II agreement.
On Syria, Moscow has gained some of what it sought. It is now engaged with the US in daily deconfliction of military operations as well as higher level political discussions. But we continue to disagree on Bashar al Assad and on who is a terrorist.
More generally, Russia is a declining power in key dimensions: its economy is in a tailspin, its population is imploding, its energy resources are no longer as irreplaceable as once they were. Most of Ukraine is lost, mainly because the West has proven more unified than Putin anticipated. His effort to reassert Russia’s great power status has largely failed except for Syria, where the reformed and refinanced Russian military has proven to have serious but limited capabilities. The Russian regime is self-deceiving, unable to correct its mistakes or face its own responsibility. It instead blames its problems on the rest of the world.
Even if the Ukraine sanctions were lifted, the Russian economy would not recover quickly. Nor would prospects for political change, which depend on an upper middle class that is shrinking because of emigration and economic difficulties. The regime has successfully repressed the political opposition and left it without significant representation.
Putin has become decreasingly pragmatic and increasingly ideological towards the West since 2012. He can still be pragmatic (e.g. with China) but less and less so with the West. He is openly preparing for more war as he challenges the West in Ukraine and the Middle East. His ruling circle is shrinking, becoming less predictable and disengaging from the West. He is unrealistic. The beat of the war drums coming from Moscow’s tightly controlled propaganda machine is loud. The risks are high.
The West is also subject to risk. EU unity on the sanctions may not last. Ukraine could fail to deliver on its part of Minsk II. Conditionality has worked with Ukraine on economic issues, far less so on political ones like electoral and administrative reform. The US election also raises questions, as even Hillary Clinton may not give priority to Ukraine and could try to reach out to Putin. Donald Trump is unpredictable, but he has said he is looking for a deal. That could mean divvying up Europe again, as we did at Yalta.
Washington in particular hasn’t made up its mind on the threat from Russia. Some believe Russia is a declining power that wants to deal with the US and poses relatively little threat. Neither its propaganda machine nor its military has proven very successful. In Ukraine and Syria, there is an imbalance of interests: they are far more important to Russia than to the West. Others think Russia is a serious and growing threat, evidenced by its burgeoning military strength. Still others think there is a need to reassess relations with Russia and in particular to anticipate an end to sanctions, striking as good a deal as the West can get before they collapse.
These uncertainties could become all too apparent this summer, as Moscow will want to react to the July NATO Summit. There is a real possibility of an August surprise in Ukraine or Syria, or perhaps in the form of a Turkey/Russia conflict, which would put NATO on the spot. Russia may be declining, but it is not going away.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks June 6-10
- A Transatlantic Strategy for a Democratic Tunisia | Tuesday, June 7th | 9:00-10:30 | Atlantic Council | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Please join the Atlantic Council on June 7 at 9:00 a.m. for a discussion featuring US and European officials and a panel of experts on assistance to Tunisia and the way forward for a new transatlantic strategy. Five years after Tunisia’s revolution, democratic and economic reforms have stalled. Following the revolution, the United States, the European Union, and EU member states – namely France, Germany, and the United Kingdom – substantially boosted assistance to Tunisia. But simply increasing support has not proven to be effective. In a new report titled, A Transatlantic Strategy for a Democratic Tunisia, authors Frances G. Burwell, Amy Hawthorne, Karim Mezran, and Elissa Miller present a new way forward for western engagement with Tunisia that makes clear the country’s priority status in the transatlantic agenda as it moves away from the immediate post-revolutionary period. The speakers will discuss the challenges facing Tunisia in the areas of economic development, security, and democratic development, and what steps the United States, the European Union, and key EU member states can take to help Tunisia meet these challenges and achieve greater stability and democracy. Paige Alexander leads the Bureau for the Middle East at the US Agency for International Development, where she oversees the efforts of USAID missions and development programs in countries across the region. Nicholas Westcott manages the Middle East and North Africa at the European External Action Service. Andrea Gamba focuses on Tunisia at the International Monetary Fund. Amy Hawthorne directs research at the Project on Middle East Democracy and focuses on Arab political reform and democracy promotion. Karim Mezran specializes in North African affairs at the Atlantic Council, specifically Tunisia and Libya. Frances G. Burwell concentrates on the European Union, US-EU relations, and a range of transatlantic economic, political, and defense issues at the Atlantic Council.
- Taiwan’s 2016 election and prospects for the Tsai administration | Wednesday, June 8th | 9:00-12:15 | Brookings | REGISTER TO ATTEND | On May 20, 2016, Taiwan inaugurated its first female president, Tsai Ing-wen. Along with the executive office, the opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) gained a majority in the Legislative Yuan for the first time. The challenges facing the new administration, which President Tsai laid out in her inauguration address, are vast and complex ranging from pension reforms, environmental protection and unemployment concerns to regional economic integration and cross-Strait stability. On June 8, the Center for East Asia Policy Studies at Brookings and the Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI) will co-host a conference on the future of Taiwan under the Tsai administration. Panelists will present papers on how the 2016 elections impact domestic politics, cross-Strait relations and Taiwan’s external strategy, and what the elections mean for Tsai’s social and economic policy reform agenda and Taiwan’s aspirations for a greater role in international space. Orbis, FPRI’s journal of world affairs, will publish a special Taiwan issue with the conference papers. Following each discussion, panelists will take audience questions. Panelists may be found here.
- The Future of NATO Enlargement and New Frontiers in European Security | Wednesday, June 8th | 11:30-1:00 | Atlantic Council | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Recent events in Europe’s east and rising tensions with Russia have resurrected the debate of whether NATO enlargement is provocative or stabilizing. While NATO enlargement has boasted historic success stories, such as Poland and the Baltic States becoming strong and stable democratic allies. But Russia has designated Alliance enlargement as a threat to its national security. In Europe’s challenging new security environment, NATO took a bold step forward to sustain its open door policy by announcing Montenegro’s membership accession, paving the way for the Balkan country to become the Alliance’s 29th member. With Montenegro poised to potentially join NATO, the Atlantic Council is convening leading experts to discuss the Alliance’s future appetite for enlargement, the political implications of NATO expansion, and what it means for NATO’s frontiers in the south and east. Speakers may be found here.
- Learning to Live with Cheaper Oil | Wednesday, June 8th | 12:00-2:00 | Middle East Institute | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The recent, dramatic decline in global oil prices substantially altered the economic context and growth prospects for oil-exporting countries in the Middle East and Central Asia. Ambitious fiscal consolidation measures are being implemented, but budget balances may continue to deteriorate given the sharp drop in oil revenue. This presents both an opportunity and an impetus to revise energy subsidies and make deep structural reforms to support jobs and growth and facilitate economic diversification. The Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and The Middle East Institute (MEI) are pleased to host senior IMF officialsMin Zhuand Martin Sommer for a presentation on the policy adjustments undertaken by regional oil-exporters and the future prospects for their economies. Dr. John Lipsky (SAIS) will moderate an expert panel discussion following the presentation.
- Irreversible Damage: Civilian Harm in Modern Conflict | Wednesday, June 8th | 1:00-2:00 | U.S. Institute of Peace | REGISTER TO ATTEND | U.S. forces and their allies abroad have underestimated the irreversible damage done to their missions when they kill or harm civilians, says a new report by combat veteran and strategist Christopher Kolenda and human rights researcher Rachel Reid. Yet military forces can make changes to dramatically reduce civilian casualties-and did so in Afghanistan-without undermining their own force protection or ceding military advantage. Tragically, this hard-won lesson is often lost, as in the disastrous U.S. airstrike on an Afghan hospital that killed 42 people in October. Reid led research work for Human Rights Watch amid the Afghan war after years of reporting from the country for the BBC. Kolenda commanded airborne troops in Afghanistan and later helped shape U.S. strategy there and at the Pentagon. The authors interviewed more than 40 senior U.S. and Afghan officials as part of their study examining the complex relationships among civilian harm, force protection and U.S. strategic interests in Afghanistan. In that war, civilian harm by Afghan and international forces fueled the growth of the Taliban insurgency, and undermined the legitimacy of the international mission and Afghan government. In 2008, international forces were responsible for 39 percent of civilian fatalities. Major reforms by U.S. forces reduced that to 9 percent by 2012. The lessons about the irreversible damage of civilian harm have not been fully understood or institutionalized. U.S. partners fighting the Taliban, ISIS, and al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula are inflicting high rates of civilian casualties with weapons and support from the United States, yet they seem no closer to success. The tragedy of the October U.S. airstrikes on the hospital in Kunduz run by Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders), showed that without consistent leadership attention, resources and training, hard-learned lessons can be lost relatively rapidly. In their report, published June 7 by the Open Society Foundations, the authors outline recommendations to promote civilian protection in ways that protect soldiers and advance U.S. interests.
- Engaging the Arts for a Vibrant, International Ukraine | Wednesday, June 8th | 3:00-4:00 | Wilson Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Jamala’s victory at the 2016 Eurovision Song Contest reminded the Ukrainian political class of the critical role arts and culture play in foreign relations and their unique ability to promote national interests. Ukraine’s culture holds tremendous potential to counteract what many perceive as a growing “Ukraine fatigue” in the West. To what extent do Ukraine’s political and economic elites grasp this possibility and have a strategy? The speakers will discuss how to develop Ukraine’s “soft power” in light of existing economic constraints and informational challenges. Speakers include Hanna Hopko, Member of Parliament and Head of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, and Kateryna Smagliy, Director of the Kennan Institute in Ukraine. The panel will be followed by a reception celebrating the exhibition of Victor Sydorenko‘s photos, statues, and video works.
- Sub-Saharan Africa: IMF Regional Economic Outlook | Thursday, June 9th | 10:00-11:30 | Brookings | REGISTER TO ATTEND | After an extended period of strong economic growth, many sub-Saharan African countries have been hit by multiple shocks – the sharp decline in commodity prices, tighter financing conditions and a severe drought in southern and eastern Africa. Growth fell in 2015 to its lowest level in some 15 years and is expected to slow further to 3 percent in 2016. The growth performance, however, differs across countries, with most oil importers faring reasonably well. On June 9, IMF African Department Director Antoinette Sayeh will present the IMF’s Regional Economic Outlook for sub-Saharan Africa, which argues that the region’s medium-term prospects remain favorable but that many countries urgently need to reset their policies to reinvigorate growth and realize this potential. To this end, she will elaborate on how countries should both adjust their macroeconomic policies in the short run, and refocus policies to facilitate structural transformation and export diversification, so as to strengthen resilience and boost growth. After the presentation, Steven Radelet, Georgetown University Professor, and Amadou Sy, Director of the Africa Growth Initiative, will join Dr. Sayeh for a panel discussion moderated by Reed Kramer, Co-founder and CEO of AllAfrica Global Media. Afterward, questions will be taken from the audience.
- Brazil Under Acting President Michel Temer | Thursday, June 9th | 10:30-12:30 | Wilson Center | The uneven start of the administration of acting President Michel Temer, following the impeachment of President Dilma Rousseff by the House of Representatives and her suspension by the Senate, confirmed the complexity of the governability crisis that has and will continue to reverberate in Brazil for some time. During Temer’s first two weeks in office, two of his ministers were forced to resign after revelations of their alleged involvement in efforts to derail federal investigations into bribery schemes at state oil company Petrobras. The corruption probe has continued to enjoy widespread public support. The new government managed to approve a new 2016 budget deficit target in Congress – the first step in a difficult reform agenda meant to restore investor and consumer confidence, and ease the crisis later this year. The announcement of a new more pragmatic foreign policy, a shift away from the alliances between the Workers’ Party and its Bolivarian partners in South and Central America, encouraged Washington to express its sympathy for the constitutional process that led to Rousseff’s ouster. This has culminated in the US administration appointing a veteran career diplomat, Peter Michael McKinley, as the new US ambassador for Brazil. On June 9, with the Senate preparing to start Rousseff’s impeachment trial, the Brazil Institute will convene a panel of experts to take stock of the crisis and its possible developments. The discussion will start with an assessment of the economic outlook and the release of a survey conducted by Ideia Inteligencia on public sentiment regarding Temer’s interim government, the impeachment trial and the anti-corruption investigations. Speakers may be found here.
- Islamic exceptionalism: How the struggle over Islam is reshaping the world | Thursday, June 9th | 5:30-8:00 | Brookings | REGISTER TO ATTEND | With the rise of ISIS and a growing terrorist threat in the West, unprecedented attention has focused on Islam, which despite being the world’s fastest growing religion, is also one of the most misunderstood. In his new book “Islamic Exceptionalism: How the Struggle over Islam is Reshaping the World” (St. Martin’s Press, 2016), Senior Fellow Shadi Hamid offers a novel and provocative argument on how Islam is, in fact, “exceptional” in how it relates to politics, with profound implications for how we understand the future of the Middle East. Hamid argues for a new understanding of how Islam and Islamism shape politics by examining different modes of reckoning with the problem of religion and state, including the terrifying—and alarmingly successful—example of ISIS. On June 9, Shadi Hamid, Isaiah Berlin, Senior Fellow in Culture and Policy, and Leon Wieseltier will discuss the unresolved questions of religion’s role in public life and whether Islam can—or should—be reformed or secularized. After the discussion, Hamid will take audience questions.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Serbia wants stability
I am finishing up a first day of meetings and interviews in Belgrade. I hadn’t been here for I don’t remember how many years. Commerce is notably more active and everything a bit spiffier, except for the rather tired Hyatt hotel, once the glitziest place in town. Prime Minister Vucic, whom I saw this morning, is readying a new government for parliamentary approval following on his good performance in the April 24 election.
Serbia today worries about stability in its neighborhood. That alone is good news, since under Slobodan Milosevic it spent a good deal of time and effort creating instability throughout the Balkans. There is unfortunately a lot to worry about. Macedonia is suffering a major political crisis, initiated over illegal wiretapping but now extending far beyond that. Bosnia and Herzegovina has its perpetual political problem: Republika Srpska President Dodik wants his 49% “entity” to be independent and is doing his best to render the Sarajevo government dysfunctional. Kosovo has weathered a normal succession of presidents but faces continuing violent opposition, in particular to talks with Belgrade, and advocacy of union with Albania, which Kosovo’s constitution prohibits. Scandal allegations and political ambiguity are buffeting Croatia.
Things in Serbia are relatively calm and clear. Vucic may not have won quite as many seats as he would have liked, but he has a clear majority and will bring in a few other parties to consolidate his hold on power. His more challenging opposition, part of which will be within the government and even the presidency, is from nationalists and Russophiles who really don’t stand a chance. Their Greater Serbia program has been rejected in both war and peace. Moscow, while thumping its chest quite a bit, really has little to offer anyone in the Balkans, as its treasury is running dry due to low oil and gas prices. Moscow is also exhausting its military and credibility in wars in Ukraine and Syria.
On the more democratic and civic left of the political spectrum fragmentation and confusion reign in Serbia. Former President Tadic has been unable to assemble a critical mass and has prevented others from doing so.
Vucic is therefore as free as any Serbian prime minister has been for a long time to set Serbia’s direction. My hope is that he will double down on the more politically difficult parts of qualifying for EU membership, in particular by allowing far more media freedom, instituting significant security sector reforms and developing a more independent and efficacious judicial system. I discuss these issues in a recently published book chapter on “Challenges of Democratization in Serbia, which I know the PM has read.
Beyond that, it seems to me the regional issues really are very important. The priorities include completing the Durres/Pristina road to Nis, the Belgrade/Bar road through Montenegro, railway improvements and added intra-regional flights, especially between Belgrade and Pristina. The Kosovo/Serbia boundary/border needs demarcation. These are the subjects of what former Croatian Foreign Minister Pusic calls “boring politics”(as opposed to the heroic politics of state formation) but they are vital in providing the kind of economic stimulus and interconnectedness required for stability in a place like the Balkans.
I’ll also hope that Belgrade will prepared to restart talks with Pristina, focusing initially on implementation of the existing agreements but eventually extending to a settlement of all outstanding issues, including entry of Kosovo into the United Nations and establishment of diplomatic relations between Belgrade and Pristina. With respect to Bosnia, Belgrade needs somehow to rein in Dodik and convince him to throw in his lot with a government in Sarajevo that can credibly begin to prepare the country for EU membership. Solutions in Bosnia and Kosovo would do a great deal to ensure the kind of stability democratic Belgrade needs.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Professors on the Montenegrin coast
Saturday was a recovery day for me after 15-hour trip to Podgorica, where I’ll be speaking Monday at a university event commemorating Montenegro’s tenth anniversary of independence. So naturally Sinisa Vukovic, my Montenegrin colleague at SAIS, and I took in the sights on the coast, in addition to a busman’s holiday morning at a conference on Global Security at Stake–Challenges and Responses that happened to be occurring in Budva.
The first of the three sessions we attended was on the Balkans, featuring the presidents of Croatia, Montenegro and Slovenia. The message was clear: they want us to speed up entry of the remaining Balkans countries into NATO and the EU. Their plea is that accession is not only a technical question but a political one as well. It should be conceived as consolidation of Europe rather than enlargement. Montenegro’s entry into NATO is a strong positive signal, but it needs not only approval at the July Warsaw Summit but also quick ratification in the 28 member states. A membership action plan for Bosnia and Herzegovina should follow, as should membership for Macedonia, which had met the criteria for membership before its most recent crisis.
President Borut Pahor of Slovenia was less certain about membership in the EU for Ukraine and Turkey. He thought some sort of special status needed. President Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovic claimed Croatia is not blocking Serbian negotiations with the EU but only insisting that Belgrade meet the standards the EU sets, just as Croatia had to do in becoming a member. She was also keen to point out that the problem of refugees entering the EU is not the main issue, but rather the conditions in the Middle East and North Africa that are generating the refugee flow. Europe has to do more about that, she suggested. All three presidents seemed keen on infrastructure connections (transport, telecommunications and energy) not only within the Balkans but also around the Black Sea and with eastern Europe, all the way to the Baltics.
The second session focused on the US election and likely shifts in foreign policy. The European panelists–Julian Lindley French and Stefano Stefanini–agreed that either candidate as president will want Europe to do more. Both also thought it should, but suggested that the benchmark should not necessarily be 2% of GNP spent on defense (the NATO goal) but rather a broader measure of national security expenditure that takes into account relevant civilian diplomatic, development and state-building efforts.
Former US Ambassador to Turkmenistan Laura Kennedy (retired) had the unenviable task of explaining America, in particular the candidate she does not favor, to the Balkan audience. Hillary Clinton, she said, would be well within the centrist, multilateralist tradition that Barack Obama also represents, even if she differs with him on Syria and other things. Donald Trump, however, would be a radical departure, one more friendly to Russia, far less concerned about human rights, doubtful of US alliances (including NATO), and much more unpredictable than Clinton.
The third session discussed the Islamic State (ISIL) challenge. There was much the usual discussion of radicalization and deradicalization, with some observers noting a sharp decline in the once high rate of Balkan Muslims leaving to fight in Syria and Iraq. This is apparently the result of a sharp crackdown in Kosovo and Bosnia. Reintegration of those returning to the Balkans and elsewhere is however still a big challenge, even if there has been no sign so far of violent extremist events in the Balkans attributable to returnees.
Much the most interesting moment was General (ret.) John Allen’s outline of the longer-term challenges that are likely to make the governance challenges we face in the Middle East (and elsewhere) harder: shifts of wealth to the east, growing inequality, urbanization, youth bulges and climate change are the factors I remember him mentioning. Terrorism, he suggested, is a symptom of much deeper problems that are not going to go away because ISIL is defeated militarily. We need to meet the governance challenges the longer-term factors pose if we want to live in peace.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Extending the 3 day miracle
Alexandra Martin, a Johns Hopkins SAIS graduate student and Eurasia Foundation Young Professional 2015/16, reports:
May 1 most Eastern Europeans celebrated the Orthodox Easter. I have vivid memories about how important this tradition is for the Orthodox community. When I was little, my grand-grandmother used to tell me that people forget about their discords for these three days. Even those who are fighting in a war put their guns down and respect the Holiest of the Orthodox celebrations. She survived both World Wars and many political regimes, including an empire, communist repression and fragile democracy.
Her words came to my mind when I read about the Easter armistice negotiated in Eastern Ukraine. The conflict between Ukrainian authorities and separatist fighters in Donbas had escalated in past weeks. The number of ceasefire violations skyrocketed. A week ago, four civilians lost their lives in Olenivka, when the area came under shelling. They add to the 9187 people killed since the beginning of Ukraine crisis in 2014.
The armistice was brokered in order to ensure that people on both sides of the Contact Line are safe celebrating Easter. Compared to previous weeks, it accomplished some success. The OSCE Special Monitoring Mission (SMM) “observed a low number of ceasefire violations in Donetsk region, and none in Luhansk region” on Easter Sunday, according to the organization’s daily report. The entire weekend appeared to follow the same trend, with a low number of ceasefire violations. But what will happen now? What will happen as Eastern Ukraine returns to business as usual?
To clarify some of my questions, I reached out to Alexander Hug, Principal Deputy Chief Monitor at the OSCE SMM. He was kind enough to answer my concerns.
Q: Why the upward trend in fighting recently? What triggered it?
AH: Let me qualify what is underlying your question: we have always recorded ebbs and flows in ceasefire violations, and they have always concentrated in a couple of hotspots. There have been quieter periods, especially after 1 September, and around New Year. It is true that since mid-January there have been more very active days of fighting. And what is worrying: the usage of weapons which should have been withdrawn from the Security Zone, e.g. mortars, are used much more than in the fall of 2015. A key factor for the near-constant violations of the ceasefire is that military formations are standing too close together and have recently moved even closer in some locations. This represents a violation of the Minsk agreements and must not continue. Disengagement is a necessity in the current situation. Another element contributing not necessarily to an increase, but to the continuation of ceasefire violations is that there is no effective response mechanism for violations.
Q: How is the OSCE getting prepared for this new level of fragility? What additional efforts are designed to re-stabilize the situation?
AH: The SMM remains an unarmed civilian monitoring mission. The SMM has expanded its presence on both sides of the contact line – both in numbers and geographically. Forward patrol bases are now operational in eight locations, bringing the total of SMM locations in Donetsk and Luhansk regions to thirteen, eight in government-controlled areas and five in non-government controlled areas. More forward patrol bases are needed, including in non-government controlled areas, but the SMM needs safety and security assurances from those in effective control in the respective locations.
Currently, the Mission has 699 Monitors, with the aim of further expansion. This expansion is accompanied by an expansion of the Mission’s technical capabilities. Long-range UAVs have been complemented by mid-range and small size UAVs. In addition, the Mission is now operating three static observation cameras in certain hotspots along the contact line, and this number will be expanded.
However, the freedom of movement of the SMM is restricted, which impedes monitoring. Direct attacks against the SMM and its assets are taking place with impunity for the perpetrators. Three serious security incidents have taken place recently: weapons were shot in the direction of SMM Monitors, they were threatened at gunpoint and one vehicle was hit by a bullet.
We have called for an end to this impunity for people who threaten, violently mistreat or attack the SMM, or who violate its freedom of movement at all levels and on all sides.
Q: Many experts and scholars saw Donbas as a new frozen conflict in Eastern Europe. The evidence proves that we are far from frozen. What is your projection for conflict resolution, implementation of Minsk II, and normalization on the ground for the near future? Are the parties running into a stalemate, are there signs of fighting fatigue or exactly the opposite?
AH: During the past weeks, the SMM has registered the highest number of ceasefire violations in months. Artillery and mortars, proscribed by the Minsk agreements, are being used again in increased numbers. Fighting takes place in hotspots. The fighting there varies in intensity over time. Days of relative calm are followed by days, or even weeks, of intense escalation. Just recently, in the week from 11 to 17 April, the Mission has observed particularly intensive violence between Avdiivka and Yasynuvata, to the north of Donetsk. This was the highest level of violence observed since August 2015.
Armed violence also continues around the city of Zaitseve, around Horlivka and around Svitlodarsk and Debaltseve. An upsurge in ceasefire violations has also taken place in the south of Donetsk region and in Luhansk region. An ever increasing number of weapons are missing from permanent storage sites and from known weapons holding areas. Many of these facilities are completely abandoned. Our observations suggest that many of these weapons are back in use at the contact line.
A sustainable ceasefire is of central importance to the further implementation of the Minsk agreements. The sides need to show visible and decisive action to restore it. The SMM stands ready to facilitate dialogue between the sides in order to return normality to the lives of the people of Ukraine. There are no alternatives to the Minsk arrangements, and our experience on the ground proves that the sides can stop the fire when they want to. It is all up to political will at the highest level. We have also seen that when there are quieter periods, trust is increasing and the sides are able to work together, e.g. on repairs, demining etc. I believe it is possible to normalize the situation, and this is necessary not least for the lives of civilians affected. And it is why we are here. We will keep on working on it.
The implementation of Minsk II provisions remains central to a long lasting conflict resolution in Ukraine. The war has already exposed over 3 million people to high risks. They are in urgent need of humanitarian aid. The Orthodox Easter armistice proved that fighting can de-escalate immediately if there is political will. At this point one can only hope that the ‘miracle’ lasts more than three days.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
This doesn’t make sense
US Ambassador to NATO Lute said Friday:
I think Russia plays an important part in the strategic environment…[which] will put a break on NATO expansion. If you accept the premises…about Russia’s internal weakness and perhaps steady decline, it may not make sense to push further now and maybe accelerate or destabilize the decline.
I am assured that this statement represents no departure from Article 10 of the NATO treaty, which provides for the membership to unanimously “invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty.” Montenegro has already received such an invitation and will be admitted to membership at the July 8/9 NATO Summit in Warsaw.
What doesn’t make sense to me is Washington accommodating Moscow’s aggressiveness internationally in order to avoid destabilizing it internally. Quite to the contrary: pushing back on Moscow’s increasingly aggressive stance against NATO expansion would provide incentive and opportunity for Russia to refocus its energies on its internal problems, which lower oil prices and Ukraine-induced sanctions are aggravating.
This is particularly true for NATO expansion into the Balkans, a region not contiguous with Russian territory. NATO expansion to tiny and distant Montenegro can in no way be reasonably perceived as a threat to Russia, no matter how often Russian diplomats repeat that refrain. The same is true of Slovenia, Albania and Croatia, all of which became NATO members with little or no comment from Moscow. Even if all of the remaining Balkans countries join–that’s Kosovo, Macedonia, Bosnia and Serbia–Russia is in no way militarily at risk.
That makes the Balkans different from Georgia and Ukraine. Location matters.
This hasn’t prevented Moscow from mounting aggressive campaigns in all but pro-American Kosovo against Alliance membership, as well as a rearguard action against Montenegrin accession. Moscow uses its diplomats to speak out crudely against NATO membership, its money to fund anti-NATO protests, and its commercial influence to turn local politicians against the Alliance. Russia has even planted a proto-base (allegedly for humanitarian rather than military purposes) in southern Serbia, hoping this will inoculate Belgrade from catching the NATO flu.
Russia’s anti-NATO efforts threaten to destabilize the Balkans, where the prospect of NATO membership is an important factor in promoting democratization and reducing inter-ethnic tensions. This is especially true in Macedonia, where much of the Albanian population regards the prospect of NATO membership as vital to its own security. It is of course also true in Kosovo, where NATO troops have been vital to maintaining a safe and secure environment since the NATO/Yugoslavia war in 2001. Bosnia and Serbia are more ambivalent towards NATO, though Serbia’s prime minister recently noted (in the runup to a parliamentary election) that NATO troops in Kosovo protect the Serb population there.
So Ambassador Lute’s comments–even if not meant to qualify Article 10–will be read in the Balkans as discouraging hopes for NATO membership and in Moscow as a green light for Russian efforts to undermine the generally positive trend the region has taken for the past 20 years. It would be good now for the American Administration to reiterate that Washington still wants a Europe “whole and free,” including in particular the Balkans and even Russia if it so chooses. Anything less than that gives Moscow further incentive to muck in what it increasingly considers its sphere of influence, which could set back decades of democratization and run the real risk of destabilization.
RSS - Posts
