ONE YEAR AFTER MAIDAN

The ceasefire in Ukraine agreed in Minsk under the "Normandy" negotiation format has held for the most part. But the overall situation remains extremely complex, making the country's future prospects very mixed, if not unclear, one year after the start of its new period in history under the sign of the "revolutionary Maidan" [[reference to Kiev's Independence Square, the site of anti-government rallies that resulted in the ousting of President Yanukovych in 2014].

At the end of winter last year, Ukraine saw a change of government that had truly momentous consequences for its foreseeable future. Evaluations of the outcome vary quite dramatically, of course, depending on one's political views. But the fact remains: one year after the victory of Maidan, the overthrow of former President Viktor Yanukovych from the "Ukrainian streets", war has set in. It has claimed the lives of thousands of civilians, led to the division of Ukraine (Crimea transferred to Russian control and war in the country's southeast), and led the country to the brink of economic ruin. The situation begs the question: For what did the Ukrainians hurl themselves onto the altar and offer so many sacrifices? 

Was it just for the sake of signing the Association Agreement with the European Union, which was one of the first acts by the new Ukrainian government after the overthrow of Yanukovych, who postponed this decision indefinitely just before the sudden interruption of his rule? Then that would mean that it would only have taken a signature on an agreement in order to stay in power and become the cherished by the West, pro-European "yellow and blue" government.

The answers to these questions, of course, are rhetorical, because, in fact, they have little to do with the fate of the Ukrainian government, and indeed with all the intricacies of Ukrainian domestic politics. It is quite clear that last year's events, which played out on Maidan, plunged the country into the abyss of the "foreign games" - ratcheting up the geopolitical confrontation between the West and Russia, the price of which is control more or less over the rich natural resources and vast territory of Eurasia. The stakes are so high that the fate of Ukraine is nothing to the main participants in this epic struggle, who, for the interests of their global strategy, are willing to forsake not only the Ukrainian state, but also the lives of thousands of Ukrainian children, women and the elderly.

A good reflection of the current war in Ukraine was the outcome of the battle for Debaltseve. Thousands of Ukrainian soldiers were trapped in this "meat grinder"; some died, others were rescued, while the rest were captured by the pro-Russian Donbass separatists. Meanwhile, the leaders of Ukraine, Russia, France and Germany - the so-called "Normandy format" - nearly agreed on a ceasefire in Ukraine. But Debaltseve only reminds us that war and peace in Ukraine, in particular in its current situation, are still very relative concepts.

Thus Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko urged his counterparts in the "Normandy format" - German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Francois Hollande, and Russian leader Vladimir Putin - not to pretend that the events in Debaltseve comply with the Minsk agreements. Meanwhile, it was reported that during the last round of telephone calls the "four leaders agreed to implement the entire package of agreements reached on 12 February in Minsk: a ceasefire across the entire front without exception, the withdrawal of heavy weapons within the agreed timeframe, the monitoring of these actions by OSCE observers and providing them free access and security guarantees, and acceleration of the prisoner exchange process".

But the very defeat at Debaltseve was so severe a blow to Kiev that President Poroshenko proposed bringing in international peacekeepers, "both along the line of conflict and on the international border between Ukraine and Russia".

Kiev has called for an international peacekeeping mission that would operate in accordance with the mandate of the UN Security Council. In addition, the proposal would introduce an EU police mission to  Donbass. According to Ukrainian president, "the best format for us would be the EU Police Mission. This would be the most effective guarantor of security in a situation where the word peace is not respected by Russia nor by those whom it supports."

It is no surprise that Ukraine does not see Russia as part of the peacekeeping mission in the country's southeast. "Russia as an aggressor country cannot and will not take part in the peacekeeping operation," said Poroshenko.

However, the idea of bringing peacekeepers to Donbass itself still seems very doubtful - first of all, because Moscow and the self-proclaimed "people's republics" of Donetsk and Lugansk would never allow "blue helmets" to set foot in the region without Russia's participation. Poroshenko's proposal was met with a lukewarm reception in the EU, which does not much like the idea of direct military involvement in the conflict in Ukraine, even in a peacekeeping capacity.

Only the OSCE has stated its readiness to cooperate with the proposed peacekeepers. It is significant that the leaders of Ukraine, Russia, France and Germany discussed the strengthening of the OSCE mission as a way to control the implementation of the ceasefire, but said nothing of the possibility of it entering the conflict region as international peacekeeping forces.

However, when considering the current Ukrainian reality, we cannot ignore one very important factor concerning the weakening of President Poroshenko's position in the context of recent events - the Ukrainian army's defeat in Debaltseve and total failure of Kiev's military operation to establish control over Donbass. In fact, many experts believe that the Ukrainian president's proposal  for the immediate introduction of an international peacekeeping mission to the region is aimed at somehow offsetting past failures and at the same time protecting himself and the country from possible excesses of this kind in the future.

The weakening of Poroshenko's position takes place in the context of a general intensification of a domestic struggle for power. A recent statement by an MP from the Petro Poroshenko bloc in the Verkhovna Rada [Ukrainian Parliament], Andrey Kaplin, sheds some light on what's going on behind the scenes. He accused not just anyone, but the Prime Minister of Ukraine Arseniy Yatsenyuk and the head of the National Security and Defense Council (NSDC) Oleksandr Turchynov, of stirring up the armed confrontation in Donbass.

"Let's speak the truth of who brought the situation to the East!" said Kaplin. "When they say it was only Putin, that's a very convenient answer. Yatsenyuk and he who now heads the NSDC." According to Kaplin, the fighting in the Donbass could have stopped immediately, but the country's leadership was interested in continuing the conflict.

Of course, in this statement made by one of Poroshenko's own, it is impossible not to spot the frustration of the unused, in his view, possibility of strangling with one hand rebellious speeches in the country's east. However, to a much greater extent, Kaplin's words reflect a growing confrontation between Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk and Turchynov, and, considering the fact that the latter two act as agents of American influence in Ukraine, point to growing US pressure on the Kiev.

Apparently, Washington is seriously unhappy with Poroshenko's latest failures that threaten to discredit the entire "Maidan affair" that was so carefully nurtured by overseas strategists a year ago. Hence the incessant talk by Washington politicians about the need to direct arms deliveries to Ukraine, the purpose of which becomes all too transparent given their hopes that the Ukrainian armed forces will fall under the control of the very same Yatsenyuk and Turchynov. Add to this an open challenge to the president and the government of Ukraine by the "Right Sector" and volunteer battalions that obey the orders of pro-American "leader" Dmytro Yarosh, who has rejected the Minsk peace deal, and we get a sense of the instability of not only Poroshenko's positions, but also of Ukraine's entire domestic political setup. As well as an answer to the question: Why are France and Germany, as the spokesmen of Europe's will, so afraid that the militant mood of their American allies with respect to the situation in Ukraine could plunge the Old World into a new continental war?