30/09/2014
Mira Milosevich, Lecturer of International Relations at IE University, School of International Relations.
On 5 September in Minsk, the Government of Ukraine and the pro-Russian separatists signed a ceasefire agreement previously negotiated between the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, and the Ukrainian President, Petro Poroshenko. This agreement portrays a new phase of the Ukrainian crisis: in the first place, NATO, the USA. and the European Union have definitively ruled out a military pulse with Russia to avoid the escalation to a possible armed confrontation. Meanwhile, the Government of Kiev has acknowledged that they have lost control of the South-East and has yielded to Russian military pressure. Finally, the agreement involves the establishment on pragmatic reality, rather than a moral and democratic vision. But this new situation raises three questions: 1) What does the ceasefire involve for Ukraine?; 2) What are the goals sought for by the separatists and Russia?; 3) What will the future relations between the West and Russia be like?
Kiev has accepted the ceasefire to ensure greater internal and external security. 73% of the Ukrainian population admits that peace should be the priority of the Government. However, peace has divided the Ukrainian society more than war: nearly 57% of Ukrainians think that Kiev should achieve a military victory and force the separatists to surrender. 34% believe that Kiev should consent to Donbas separation as the price to pay for democratic development. But Russia has already made clear that it will not allow the separatists' defeat. Therefore, Kiev has surrendered, but only to Russian pressure. The government that emerges from the elections on October 26 will face serious economic problems (the price of electricity will rise by 40% and gas by 50%, while the average wage does not exceed 75 euros per month), in an environment of political radicalisation and increasing power of the oligarchs, who have financed the paramilitary formations.
For the separatists, the agreement has been a victory in military and political terms: they have sat at the negotiating table (something which was denied to them at first) to decide their political future, that for them is their independence from Ukraine. For Russia, the ceasefire agreement involves another "frozen conflict", such as the ones of Transnistria (Moldova), South Ossetia and Abjasia (Georgia). The goal of a frozen conflict is to block the approach of a given country to the EU and NATO. For now, it is unclear whether Russia is going to settle for the territories controlled by the separatists. Chances are that it will also seek control of Mariupol (key for land access to Crimea and the Sea of Azov) and Odessa, one of the important ports on the Black Sea. Thus peace could crumble.
The Ukrainian crisis opens a permanent conflict and geopolitical rivalry between the West and Russia, because of the incompatibility of their goals in Ukraine: the EU and the USA will support the democratisation and modernisation of the country, while the Kremlin will do everything they can to avoid it because it believes that its national security would be threatened if Ukraine should enter NATO. For the USA, Ukraine's defence is not a priority and the EU has been and is too weak to defend both its values and principles and to enforce international law on the Ukrainian territorial integrity. The sanctions imposed by the EU and the USA certify that they condemn and punish Russia's behaviour, but even if sanctions harm Moscow they have not changed–and it doesn't seem likely that they will–the policy of the Kremlin. Furthermore, they threaten Europe's economic recovery. Therefore, it is likely that they will eventually disappear. However, the rupture between NATO and Russia will be more lasting. The need to cooperate on issues such as the fight against terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear weapons will not be enough to bridge the gap that already separates them.
In conclusion, this ceasefire, rather than peace is war by other means.