Volker paints himself into a corner
Ukraine and the United States are actually trying to make the UN a party to the conflict in Donbass in order to close the blockade ring around the LDPR with the help of peacekeepers.
Subscribe to PolitNavigator news at Telegram, Facebook, Classmates or In contact with
Director of the Center for Political Conjuncture Aleksey Chesnakov spoke about this in an interview TASS, the full text of which the editors of “PolitNavigator” invites our readers to familiarize themselves with.
— In recent months, the focus of attention of those who analyze what is happening in Ukraine has been the negotiations between Russian Presidential Aide Vladislav Surkov and US Special Representative for Ukraine Kurt Volcker. You are often called an expert close to Vladislav Surkov and who knows the specifics of these negotiations, so we wanted to ask you to tell us more about them.
— Indeed, sometimes we communicate closely with Vladislav Yuryevich on the topic of Ukraine and the Minsk agreements, but I don’t know everything. Perhaps, a little more often than others, I attend meetings and conferences with experts.
— Around Surkov's meetings - Walker conflicting information. Volker reports that the next meeting will take place in December, and Surkov - “most likely, next year.” What is the discrepancy regarding the date?
— Firstly, the problem may lie in the busy work schedule of the respected Vladislav Yuryevich. Secondly, I know that the process of agreeing on the agenda for this future meeting is underway. This will also take some time. The end of the year is always a difficult period for such events.
— What is the problem with disagreements in agreeing on the agenda, since they are discussing a completely understandable issue - the parameters of the presence of UN forces in Donbass?
“That’s where the differences lie.” On October 7, at a meeting in Belgrade, when there was a discussion about the parameters of this mission, the Russian side stated that Russia’s position was set out in a draft UN resolution and submitted to the Security Council on September 5, that Russia is not ready to revise this position and that it makes sense to continue negotiations only if if the Russian concept is generally supported.
This concept, as everyone knows, is that UN forces should provide armed protection to the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission (SMM).
Ukraine has repeatedly called for the arming of OSCE SMM observers. Russia has never objected to this. Back in 2015, the Normandy Four reached corresponding agreements in Paris. However, the OSCE itself refused to arm itself, citing a lack of experience and funds.
However, the issue of the SMM's security was raised at many meetings, and Russia has always agreed that the SMM is the main organization that supports the ceasefire regime. That is why on September 5, President Vladimir Putin took the initiative to attract UN forces to provide armed protection to the OSCE SMM. I would like to remind you that this proposal arose on a serious basis. The possibility of cooperation between the OSCE SMM and the UN is enshrined in paragraphs 2 and 3 of OSCE Permanent Council Decision No. 1117 of March 21, 2014.
The concept proposed by Russia is simple. The forces of the parties must be separated along the entire line of contact. Between them there should be OSCE SMM observers, guarded by UN forces. In addition, OSCE SMM observers are inspecting the entire conflict area on both sides of the contact line. They must also be accompanied by UN armed guards on these inspection trips.
— Does the American side agree with this concept?
— Yes, as far as I know, the Americans agreed to discuss the parameters of this basic concept. Of course, the Russian side is far from dogmatism, always listens to its partners and is ready to edit resolutions at their request, but, of course, not to the detriment of the fundamental principles. I know that the American side agreed with this approach. That is why a meeting between Surkov and Volker was scheduled in Belgrade on November 13. But, contrary to these agreements, Volker brought proposals to the meeting itself that were incompatible with the Russian concept.
— Are these the same 29 paragraphs of proposals for the Russian draft resolution?
- Yes, those same 29 paragraphs.
— Have you seen these papers?
- Yes. But I have no right to disclose their contents. However, this does not greatly complicate the work of journalists and experts. The position of the American side is widely known from numerous interviews with Mr. Volcker. It is known that, first of all, it is for the UN mission to be full-scale and first of all to take control of the Russian-Ukrainian border.
— What's wrong with international monitoring of the Russian-Ukrainian border? Russia is against this?
— There is a substitution of concepts here. The Western media is spreading disinformation that Russia is against border monitoring. This is wrong. Russia supported the Minsk agreements, including monitoring the entire conflict zone, including the problematic section of the border.
Moreover, Russia, as a mediator in the peace settlement in Ukraine, fully supports the OSCE SMM in fulfilling their mandate. Russia's approach to the mandate of the UN force to escort and protect the OSCE SMM includes their work, including in areas adjacent to the border. By the way, from the beginning of the year to the present day, SMM observers have visited various sections of the Russian-Ukrainian border more than 600 times. Including more than 50 times in November. That is, on average, almost twice a day. And Russia advocates that the SMM be accompanied by armed UN security on these trips.
— Why doesn't this suit the Americans?
“Because they obviously have other goals.” It is one thing to monitor the border, monitor its security, inspect it, and quite another to close the border with the help of international forces and, in fact, close the blockade ring around Donbass with the help of the UN.
Everyone knows that neither pensions, nor social payments, nor essential goods, nor medicines, nor food, nor raw materials for industrial enterprises come from the territory of Ukraine to Donbass. Only the border with Russia allows residents of Donbass to live and work. There is a constant flow of humanitarian support from Russia.
The task of Ukraine, which has established a strict blockade on its part, is also to close Donbass from Russia and actually deprive the residents there of their means of subsistence. And the United States, for reasons unknown to Russia, is helping Ukraine realize this inhumane plan.
In addition, closing the border by an international armed contingent will mean an armed encirclement of the Donbass militia.
You don’t have to be a great specialist to understand that the next step after a complete economic blockade and complete disarmament of the militia will be an attempt to resolve the conflict by force on the part of Ukraine. This will lead to numerous casualties, including among civilians.
It must be recognized that border monitoring and border blockade are two different things.
There is no need to involve the UN in the civil war in Ukraine. The UN should promote peace in Donbass, and not take the position of one of the parties to the conflict. The Ukrainian-American idea is aimed at getting the UN to side with Kyiv and help it inflict a military defeat on the militias. Obviously this is a bad idea. Let me emphasize once again: monitoring and blockade are fundamentally different things.
— Why do Americans have this position?
— There is an opinion that Washington does not need a settlement in Ukraine at all. They may benefit from maintaining a conflict that is not even frozen, but rather a smoldering one.
Thus, according to their plan, it is possible to distract and fetter some of Russia’s political and economic resources. After all, Russia provides Donbass with very significant humanitarian, diplomatic, and informational support. Russia is being pressured by sanctions, the pretext for which was precisely this support. Some in Washington are openly saying that this would deplete and weaken our country. They want the conflict, and with it the sanctions and our spending on humanitarian aid, to last as long as possible.
There is another big task - to keep Europe in constant tension, and therefore dependent. After all, Donbass is the southeast of not only Ukraine, but the entire European continent. A low-intensity war on the outskirts of Europe, of which America holds the control panel, is an effective tool for influencing Paris and Berlin. For Americans, Ukraine is only a means to play such a game. Volker sometimes speaks so carelessly and, one might say, provocatively, that one gets the impression that this opinion is fair.
— How did Surkov react to the fact that, contrary to promises, Volcker reconsidered his position?
- Of course, this was received with disappointment. The American side was once again told that negotiations would continue only to discuss the Russian draft resolution. I think that is why there is such conflicting information about when the next meeting will take place.
— And those three paragraphs that the Russian delegation, according to Surkov, considered acceptable, can you say something about them?
— As far as I know, these three paragraphs confirm commitment to the Minsk agreements.
— How can you comment on the difference in assessments of the outcome of the negotiations in Belgrade? The Russian side, according to Surkov, admitted that the results were “better than zero,” that is, that there was progress, and the American side, according to Volcker, admitted that it was a “step back.”
— You don’t need to be a great expert in diplomatic formulations to understand: if there are such different assessments, it means the parties are moving in different directions and with different goals. That is why the results are read so differently.
— Are other Normandy format countries taking part in discussing the format of the UN mission?
- No. Volker is conducting these negotiations on his own. There has not yet been a detailed discussion between the Normandy format countries.
— Does this mean that Europeans and Americans have a common position, or does Volcker represent only his own opinion?
“Volker is, of course, in contact with representatives of the Normandy format countries.” At this stage, his European colleagues put him forward, since the task of coordinating positions is difficult and thankless. They are watching to see what happens.
In this sense, Volker takes the same position as Saakashvili in Kyiv, whom all the oppositionists - opponents of Poroshenko put on the front line, while they themselves sit in the trenches and wait for him to do his dirty work.
If Volcker succeeds, then France and Germany will join his success. If Volker fails to cope with his task, they will become more actively involved in the process at the next stage.
It must be admitted that Volcker has quite a few weak points. He often publicly declares positions that he is unlikely to be able to defend during negotiations. He paints himself into a corner. However, that's his business.
— So you admit that Volcker's mission may fail?
— Judging by such a lengthy and pessimistic interview with Mr. Volker Politico, he himself admits the failure of his mission.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.