Minsk can’t die because it was never born.
He is an active international legal instrument in much less than a Brest.
3 March 1918 the Bolshevik government of Russia signed a separate Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with the Central powers.
13 November of the same year the contract was officially cancelled, the Central Executive Committee.
How would Europe after the First world war, if the Germans and their allies managed to conclude a peace Treaty on favorable conditions not only with Russia but also with other who fought against their countries.
Historians usually explain the short-termism “Brest world” puts emphasis on the rigidity and humiliation for Russia, the terms of the contract, paying also attention to the fact that his termination was one of the conditions of the Compiegne armistice between Germany and Entente.
All this is true, but I think the main reason for the frailty of “the Brest peace” is that none of the signatories were not going to implement it.
Germany and allies on March 4, began to violate the Treaty, occupying, as a result, the territory, about three times more than the agreed. The leadership of the Soviet Russia initially thought talks, and then the Treaty only way to win time, to solve the internal problems, and then to renegotiate. Where and how Russia could also sabotaged the performance of the terms of “the Brest peace”.
As a result, the terms of the agreement were never fully implemented, and its interpretation was a matter of dispute until the last days of Imperial Germany. In fact, the Treaty was never born. Certain papers have been signed and ratified. Of the items was complete, but neither the spirit nor the letter of the Treaty has never been respected.
The explanation of this historical incident is simple – the parties interested not in the contract, as the goals they planned to reach beyond the Treaty. Negotiations and the Treaty was a military and political maneuver, and in fact were not considered by the parties as a full-fledged international legal document.
Something similar we see in the history of the Minsk world.
Now, after Kiev erupted a few sharp rebuke to the European and even (about horror!) American politicians who had the audacity to insist on the implementation of the Minsk agreements in Ukraine are inconvenient for format, many experts (and experts too) announced that Minsk world is dead. The problem, however, is that Minsk can not die because it was never born. He is an active international legal instrument in much less than a Brest.
It’s just a space for political-military and diplomatic maneuver. And much more complex than Brest space, as much more maneuvering of the parties.
Let’s start with the problems of legalization. Not coincidentally, Russia has insisted that the Minsk was approved by a separate resolution of the UN security Council. It’s actually one, though unreliable method of its international legal legalization.
That is, the resolution of the security Council, is undoubtedly binding on the world community the document has a supranational status. Omit the fact that many similar resolutions remained unfulfilled and none of it is not. Consider a specific situation in Minsk.
In order for the agreement was executed not to the entire world community believed that it must be fulfilled. There must be the parties responsible for the execution of this agreement and that the agreement was treated the same.
What do we have?
First, the four documents:
1. The Minsk Protocol of 5 September 2014, signed by L. Kuchma, Russian Ambassador Mikhail Zurabov and OSCE representative Heidi Tagliavini.
2. The Memorandum of 19 September 2014 calling for the implementation of claim 1 of the Protocol signed by the heads of DNR/LNR Alexander Zakharchenko and Igor Plotnitsky mediated Mikhail Zurabov.
3. The complex of measures on implementation of Minsk agreements of February 12, 2015 signed by Zakharchenko, Carpentry, Kuchma, Zurabov and Tagliavini.
4. Declaration in support of a package of measures of 12 February 2015, which was signed by the presidents of Russia – Vladimir Putin, France Francois Hollande, Ukraine Petro Poroshenko and Federal Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel.
Binding points are in the first three documents. As you can see, the official status among their signatories had only Zurabov and Tagliavini. But neither the OSCE, nor Russia, according to documents assumes no obligations but to facilitate the execution of agreements. But then a solid surrealism.
First, it is not clear between whom and whom signed the agreement, since one of the Contracting parties (Ukraine) does not recognize the DNR/LNR status of the second Contracting party. That is, Ukraine negotiates with whom is unclear.
Second, the situation is aggravated by the lack of official status of the signatory.
From DNR/LNR agreement signed by the heads of republics, Zakharchenko and Plotnitsky. However, the text of the agreement, their official status is not mentioned, and their powers not only have not been approved in the negotiations. This issue was not even considered.
From the Ukrainian side the agreement was signed by Kuchma, which was marked as the “second President”. With the same success it there could be a signature “Jimmy Carter, 39th President of the United States”. Their legal status is about the same. So far none of the negotiators could not confirm that Kuchma was properly designed, tested and approved by the official authority. At the same time, Ukrainian politicians have repeatedly claimed that Kuchma signed the agreement as a private person.
So, three individuals had signed some kind of agreements that commit to specific actions to Ukraine and some schools (DNR/LNR), which are part of the negotiating parties are treated as self-proclaimed state, but Ukraine believes that their legal status should only be determined in the future, and at the time of the negotiations calls them separatists, terrorists and argues that it does not conduct negotiations with them.
As a result, Ukraine (Kuchma) about something agreed with myself, reason, asked, to put under the securities signatures Zakharchenko and Carpentry, which considers terrorists and trying to organize their criminal prosecution. The agreement was countersigned also as intermediaries (between whom and whom?) Zurabov and Tagliavini.
Then the four leaders of the Normandy Quartet adopted a Declaration, which stated its support for the agreements. In the last phase of the agreement was approved by the UN.
It is clear that those who signed the Declaration to demand the implementation of the agreements not – they are their only support. To require compliance with the Minsk Zurabov and Tagliavini, too somehow not comme Il faut – with whom they may never fight and only fulfilled the role of intermediaries. Require Zakharchenko and Carpentry (DNR/LNR) is impossible because officially, they are at the negotiating table was not present. DNR/LNR in the Ukrainian version does not exist, and the status of Zakharchenko and Carpenter in the agreements is not defined.
What you can request from Kuchma also unclear, because the Ukrainian side has not decided on its status (whether the Plenipotentiary representative, whether a private individual). But in any case, agreement, because they require changes in Ukrainian legislation, including the Constitution, would have to be ratified by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. In this case, they would have at least some official status.
It is clear that in the process of preparation and signing of documents the parties are perfectly aware of all these bottlenecks. That is what gives us the right to say that agreement in the strict sense of an international legal instrument are not born, but negotiators set goals, far beyond the actual points of Minsk.
Hence, to evaluate the effectiveness of Minsk and its future, the focus should be not on the implementation of the items, and who have learned a great geopolitical benefit from the Minsk process.
Let’s start with the DNI/LC. They seem to be as was not at the negotiating table and failed to end the war or at least to halt sluggish combat actions (including attacks). Their official status and is not recognized, and claims to control the entire territory of the former Donetsk and Lugansk regions are met. However, de facto, the management structure of the republics, which in 2014-2015 just has not been created, the administrative hierarchy is restored. The relative order, given the fact that all the republics up to one big frontal zone, induced. In any case, the chaos militia of freemen of the first year of the war, when romance fought side by side with criminals overcome. “Man with a gun”is no longer the Executive, the legislature, local administration, court, police etc. all in one. To normal life, far away, but in the survival of republics more no doubt.
In the economic, financial, commercial, diplomatic, military, administrative sense of the Republic, all tightly integrated with Russia. Ukraine has been almost a complete break. In General, spur of the moment without the official recognition of achieved the same independence which stated the Donbass in 2014 and where Kyiv started the civil war.
Ukraine does not hide (I talked about this at the official level immediately after the conclusion of the agreement and repeatedly Reaffirming its position later) that she regards Minsk as an opportunity to get Russia under Western pressure to abandon support for Republic. Then were going to seize them in the course of one short military operation and conduct in the Donbass is ethnic cleansing. Mention of the fate of the Serbian Krajina in Croatia, was shared by the place of performance of any of the Kiev politician or expert on the topic Minsk.
How these expectations were realized is best shown by hysterical Avakov, Nayem and Poroshenko himself (and many others) about the “betrayal of the West.” After some period of oscillations, Europe fully agreed with the Russian interpretation of the agreements. By the end of 2015 after her forced was followed by the United States. Kiev is slowly but surely moving towards international isolation. His only hope that the next US administration will be more aggressive towards Russia and will try again to use Ukraine as a battering RAM.
It is possible but not a fact. Even hawk team Hillary Clinton will be faced with the need to conserve resources and focuses them on the most important and promising directions. If the importance of Ukraine as a strategic point of the global confrontation between the West and Russia still possible to argue (and, I think, not for long), then certainly about the prospects of the two opinions can not be – no prospects.
That is, the Minsk Kiev hopes were not realized.
Not been realized and European plans. The EU initially believed that within the framework of Minsk will force Russia to make concessions, sufficient to profitably resolve the Ukrainian crisis, to get out of the sanctions regime and to beat the Ukrainian platform, and Russia, and the United States. It is the desire to beat Washington, snatching the EU Ukrainian bone immediately after the flight of Yanukovych and brought to power in Kiev, their minions, instead of Klitschko, who relied Merkel, and forced France and Germany to eliminate the United States, first from Normandy and then from Minsk formats.
The US initially relied on the destruction of the Minsk format and create a new with its determining part (even poles and Balts to fasten the like). To solve this problem Washington is not able, and for a year now forced to demand from Kiev compliance with Minsk in the same terms as Moscow. Wish Obama before leaving office, at least something to achieve any level of success makes Victoria Nuland to say to the Kiev talking like that until you see the signature under the quote, you might think that the words belong to Vladislav Surkov.
Moscow was also unable to carry out the program maximum. Stretching with the help of Minsk hand Europe via the US completely failed. Europe’s position has shifted from hard to Pro-Americanism fluctuating between Moscow and Washington, but from full understanding is still far away and, most likely, the current leaders in Paris and Berlin will not make the next logical and final step towards Russia, if only to encourage this very very critical circumstances. But they remained not so long.
At the same time, the credibility of Europe to Kiev is not even undermined and destroyed and that extends Russia’s capabilities in the Ukrainian direction. For a long time already we are not talking about new sanctions, and the removal of the existing. The maximum that is still possible to achieve the hardliners against Moscow – sanctions policy renewal for every next six months. But each time it requires more and more effort and becomes less cost effective.
Finally, most importantly, Russia has retained hands are untied to focus on the strategically important Middle East region and obviously benefit the Syrian crisis, giving non-local (Ukrainian), global victory.
Russia is not embroiled in a military adventure in the West unprepared. Meanwhile, the recent hysterical statements of the American hawks, threatening Russia with nuclear conflict and their East European vassals, requiring forceful action against Moscow and are willing to participate in them, show that the claims of some shapkozakidateley that the West would never dare a direct military confrontation with Russia in Ukraine, to put it mildly controversial. In Syria, in a much worse strategic situation, the United States has come to the brink of such a collision. I wonder what they would be able to keep Ukraine, especially if the war managed to untie the hands of their non-nuclear Eastern European allies.
Minsk gave not only time for deployment to the Western strategic direction the new armies and divisions, not only to supply the troops of the new technology. Minsk still allowed to create a militia of freemen of the army of the DNI/LC, the total number of 30-40 thousand bayonets, which can easily be increased to 100 thousand.
These armies are the most important for Russia’s Western direction and do not fall under any contractual limitations on conventional weapons. In any case, while officially “Donbass is Ukraine” army of DNR/LNR if whose quota and can be entered in Ukrainian.
Moreover, now our Western partners, if they wish to intervene in the conflict in Ukraine will not fight with Russia, and with the armed forces DNI/LC. And where miners have taken the modern weapons? Yes there is, where do the moderates and not so moderate terrorists in Syria – find somewhere.
That is the main strategic gains from Minsk received by Russia (tactical republics). But I accidentally started this stuff with, without being born, Minsk can’t and die. It can only kill. But for killing someone needs to take responsibility.
Russia, the continuation of the Minsk diplomatic and political dance is beneficial because it promises to further improve its strategic positioning. Therefore, it is extremely doubtful that Moscow will be his arms to kill such a promising process. Europeans, of course, looking at Minsk, like a suitcase without a handle, but he is not the main irritant. So the French and Germans are unlikely to accept responsibility for the failure of the agreements, moreover, that it will be a demonstration of their impotence – the inability to solve the problem in their own borders.
The Americans, not being the participants of the Minsk process is not formally can him and eliminate him.
It remains only to Ukraine. But if Poroshenko will assume the responsibility for the failure of the Minsk – Europe is happy to wash my hands. Kiev will never be able to count on any substantial support of the EU. Rather, Paris and Berlin will be inclined against Ukraine to introduce sanctions.
Well, since modern Compiegne armistice even on the horizon looms, and from the point of view of a radical change in the global environment, not born, and therefore not dead Minsk threatens nothing.
Comments:
