Putin prefers a bad peace
By Israel
Shamir

In February, it is a long way to
the spring, lamented Joseph Brodsky, the poet. Indeed, snow still falls
heavily in Moscow and Kiev as well as in the rolling steppes that form
Russian-Ukrainian borderlands, but there it is tinted with red. Soldiers
are loth to fight in the winter, when life is difficult anyway in these
latitudes, but fighting already flared up in war-torn Donbass, and the
US prepares to escalate by supplying sophisticated weapons to Kiev.
Tired by the siege and by intermittent shelling, the rebels disregarded
snow and took the strategic Donetsk airport. This airport with its
Stalin-built tunnels, a symbol of solid Soviet defence work, presented a
huge challenge for underequipped militia. Its many-leveled underground
facilities were built to sustain a nuclear attack; still, the rebels,
after months of fighting, flushed the enemy out and took it.
In a bigger offensive, they
trapped Kiev’s troops in Debaltsevo pocket, and Kiev already sued for a
cease-fire. The rebels hope to dislodge the enemy from their lands
altogether; as now they hold only about one third of Donbass; but
Russia’s president still gropes for brakes. He prefers a bad peace to a
good war. For him, the Ukraine is important, but not a sine qua non,
the only problem in the world. This attitude he shares with the American
leader. There is a big difference: Russia wants peaceful Ukraine,
Americans prefer one at war.
Russia would prefer to see
Ukraine united, federal, peaceful and prosperous. The alternative of
splitting Donbass is not very tempting: Donbass is strongly connected to
the rest of Ukraine, and it is not easy to sever its ties. The war
already had sent millions of refugees from Donbass and from rump Ukraine
to Russia and overloaded its systems. Putin can’t cut loose and forget
about Donbass – his people would not allow him anyway. A cautious man,
he does not want to go to an open-ended war. So he has to navigate
towards some sort of peace.
I had a meeting with a
well-informed and highly-placed Russian source who shared with me, for
your benefit, some inner thoughts on condition of his anonymity. Though
the West is certain that Putin wants to restore the Soviet Union,
actually the Russian president did everything he could to save the
Ukraine from disintegration, said the source. That’s what Russia did in
order to bring peace to Ukraine:
- Russia supported the
West-brokered agreement of February 21, 2014, but the US still
pushed for the next day (February 22) coup, or “had brokered a
deal to transition power in Ukraine" , in
Obama’s words.
- After the coup, the
South-East Ukraine did not submit to the new Kiev regime and
seceded. Still, Moscow asked the Donbass rebels to refrain from
carrying out their May referendum. (They disregarded Putin’s
appeal).
- Moscow recognised the
results of sham May elections carried out by Kiev regime after the
coup, and recognised Poroshenko as the president of the whole
Ukraine – though there were no elections in the South East and
opposition parties were banned from participating.
- Moscow did not officially
recognise the results of November elections in Donbass, to the
chagrin of many Russian natoinalists.
These steps were quite unpopular
in Russian society, but Putin made them to promote a peaceful solution
for Ukraine. Some warlike Donbass leaders were convinced to retire. In
vain: Putin’s actions and intentions were disregarded by the US and EC.
They encouraged the ‘war party’
in Kiev. “They never found a fault with Kiev, whatever they do”, said
the source.
Peace in Ukraine can be reached
through federalisation, my source told me. That’s why two most important
parameters of Minsk accords (between Kiev and Donetsk) were those we
never hear about: constitutional and socio-economic reforms. Russia
wants to secure territorial integrity of the Ukraine (minus Crimea) but
it can be achieved only through federalisation of Ukraine with a degree
of autonomy being given to its regions. Its west and east speak
different languages, worship different heroes, have different
aspirations. They could manage together, just, if the Ukraine were a
federal state, like the US or Switzerland or India.
In Minsk, the sides agreed to
establish a joint commission for constitutional reforms, but Kiev regime
reneged on it. Instead, they created a small and secretive
constitutional committee of the Rada (Parliament). This was condemned by
the Venice Commission, a European advisory body on constitutional
matters. Donetsk people wouldn’t accept it, either, and it is not what
was agreed upon in Minsk.
As for integration, it was
agreed in Minsk to reintegrate Donbass within Ukraine. This was
disappointing for Donbass (they would prefer to join Russia), but they
accepted it, - while Kiev laid siege to Donbass, cut off its banks,
ceased buying Donbass coal, stopped to pay pensions. Kiev troops daily
shell Donetsk, a city of a million inhabitants (in peaceful times!).
Instead of amnesty for rebels, as agreed in Minsk, there are more
government troops pouring eastwards.
The Russians did not give up on
Minsk accords. The Minsk agreements could bring peace, but they have to
be implemented. Perhaps president Poroshenko of Kiev would like to, but
Kiev war party with its western support will unseat Poroshenko if he
goes too far. Paradoxically, the only way to force him to peace is war,
- though Russia would prefer the West to put pressure on its clients in
Kiev. The rebels and their Russian supporters used warfare to force him
to sign Minsk accords: their offensive on Mariupol on the Black Sea was
hugely successful, and Poroshenko preferred to go to Minsk in order to
keep Mariupol. Since then, Kiev and Donetsk had a few cease-fires, they
exchanged POWs, but Kiev refuses to implement constitutional and
socio-economic demands of Minsk accord.
It does not make sense to cease
fire, if Kiev uses it to regroup and attack again. Cease fire should
lead to a constitutional reform, said my source, a reform negotiated in
an open and transparent dialogue of the regions and Kiev. Without a
reform, Donbass (or Novorussia) will go to war. So the Debaltsevo
operation can be considered as a way to force Poroshenko to sue for
peace.
Russia does not intend to take
part in the war, or in peace negotiations, said the source. The Russians
are adamant to stay out, while the Americans are equally adamant to
present Russia as a side to conflict.
Meanwhile, the Russian-American
relations were moved forty years back to Jackson-Vanik amendment of 1974
by the Ukraine Freedom [Support Act of 2014]. The US Secretary of State
John Kerry considered this act an unfortunate development, but a
temporary one. The Russians are not that optimistic: for them, the Act
codified anti-Russian sanctions. The US tries to turn other states
against Russia, with some success. In one sweep the German Kanzlerin
Angela Merkel eliminated all organisations, structures and ties built
between Germany and Russia for many years. Every visit of Joe Biden
causes a conflagration.
The Russians are upset with the
story of the Malaysian Boeing. In every high-level encounter with the
Americans, they remind of the hysterical accusations and claims that the
liner was downed by the rebels using Russian missiles. Six months passed
since the tragedy; still the Americans did not present a single proof of
Russian and/or rebel involvement. They did not present photos of their
satellites, nor records of their AWACS aircraft hovering over Eastern
Europe. My source told me that the American high-ranking officials do
not insist anymore that Russians/rebels are involved, but they
stubbornly refuse to apologise for their previous baseless accusations.
They never say they are sorry.
Still the Americans want to play
the ball. They insist that they do not seek Russian ‘surrender’, that
they find the confrontation costly and unwelcome, while the US needs
Russian support for dealing with Iranian nuclear programme, with removal
of Syrian chemical weapons, with Palestinian problem. The Russians
retort they have heard it all during the Libyan affair and aren’t
impressed.
Differences of opinion between
Russia and the US are big in practically every area. There is one common
feature: from Syria to Donbass, Russians endorse peace, Americans push
for war. Now the Russians invited some opposition figures and the
government representatives from Syria for talks in Moscow. They came,
talked, went away and will come again. They could probably settle but
the US representatives say that they will never reconcile to Bashar
Assad presidency and will fight to the last Syrian for his dismissal. It
is not that Americans are bloodthirsty; war makes sense for them: every
war on the globe supports the US dollar and invigorates Dow Jones, as
capital seeks safe haven and finds it in the US.
They do not think about fate of
Syrians who flee to Jordan - or of Ukrainians who escape to Russia in
ever increasing numbers. What a shame for two wonderful countries! Syria
was peaceful and prosperous, the diamond of the Middle East until ruined
by the US-supported islamists; the Ukraine was the wealthiest part of
the USSR, until being ruined by the US-supported far-right and
oligarchs. Joseph Brodsky bitterly predicted in 1994, as the Ukraine
declared its independence from Russia, that the shifty Ukrainians will
yet evoke Russian poetry in their mortal hour. This prophesy is about to
be fulfilled.
Israel Shamir can be contacted
at
adam@israelshamir.net