STAKES GO UP

Relations between Russia and Ukraine have made the headlines since spring. There was a little pause in early summer, but now it looks like the situation is picking up again – by and large due to a number of events slated for the celebration of the thirtieth anniversary of post-Soviet Ukraine’s independence, as well as the imminent elections to the State Duma of the Russian Federation.

Op-ed or intervention?

Apparently, the article by the President of Russia Vladimir Putin published on July 12 on the Kremlin's website and entitled On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians, where he shared his detailed views on relations between Ukraine and Russia, has puzzled all observers. The article contains many historical parallels, with the main idea being "true sovereignty of Ukraine is possible only in partnership with Russia.” “Our spiritual, human and civilisational ties formed for centuries and have their origins in the same sources, they have been hardened by common trials, achievements and victories,” underlined Putin, who did not hide his concern about the “anti-Russia” project, as he calls it. Putin has openly accused the West of seeking to destroy the historical ties between the two neighbouring nations.

According to the Russian president, anything else for Ukraine is, figuratively, from evil, that’s the West. And the West perfectly understood the idea of the Russian president. After all, it was expressed so explicitly that goes without saying. Therefore, if the pro-Kremlin experts call Putin's article programmatic, then many Western analysts interpret the thoughts of the Russian president as meddling in the affairs of independent Ukraine and that Moscow will persistently and unswervingly pursue its strategic goals at the expense of Kiev.

There were also more radical comparisons, such as that Russia’s goal was the Anschluss of Ukraine, that Putin was preparing a new phase of the confrontation between East and West as part of his intention to restore the greatness of the Russian Empire, and that he was seriously considering the possibility of annexing Donbass. Russian political scientists opposed to the Kremlin also supported the idea, even developing it further. They suggested that perhaps Putin wanted to “justify Russia's territorial claims to Ukraine”, trying to provide an ideological basis for a likely war in the future. These concerns are backed by reports that Russian military equipment still remains close to the Ukrainian border. And that it will be allegedly used during the major West-2021 military exercises in western Russia and Belarus slated for September. It’s been also reported that the Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu ordered to study Putin’s article as part of political disciplines taught at the Russian military education facilities.

Meanwhile, Russia has filed the first ever interstate complaint with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Moscow accuses Ukraine of violating the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, including discrimination against Russian speakers, as well as Russian companies and entrepreneurs, persecuting dissidents, encouraging nationalists, depriving residents of southeastern Ukraine of the opportunity to participate in elections, attacks on diplomatic missions, deaths of civilians, etc. Interestingly, the reaction of Ukrainian authorities to the Russian complaint shows that they are not at all scared of its legal consequences, as they view it exclusively as part of the Russian propaganda. Ukraine itself accuses Russia of violating a number of articles of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, in particular the right to life, freedom of speech and movement, etc.

US-German agreements and Ukraine

Meanwhile, on July 21, it was reported that the US and Germany had agreed that Washington would not hinder any more the construction of the Russian Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, which involves the construction of two pipeline threads with a throughput capacity of 55bcm of gas annually from Russia across the Baltic Sea to Germany. Earlier, the US State Department admitted that US sanctions could not prevent the construction of Nord Stream 2 and that the decision of the White House was based on considerations of further strategic cooperation with the EU. This, certainly, is the main reason behind the agreement, because if we set geopolitics aside, the end consumers in Germany will prefer the Russian gas as indeed profitable. Yet the Americans have their own business interests in Europe: to sell their own liquefied gas. As the saying goes, ‘nothing personal, just business’.

But not in relations with Russia, since they mainly concern the interests of both sides in Ukraine. The latter, however, views the Russian gas pipeline as a direct threat to its national security. That is why Berlin and Washington promised Ukraine to control Russia's actions and respond with sanctions if it tries to deprive Ukraine of gas transit, that is to “use energy resources as economic and political leverage”. Germany has promised to support the development of Ukraine's energy sector, primarily the green one. Berlin will also try to extend after 2024 the existing contract for the transit of Russian gas through Ukraine.

Nevertheless, many Western politicians and political scientists are extremely dissatisfied with the decision of Merkel and Biden. For example, a senator and a member of the Foreign Relations Committee Ted Cruz (R) called it "Putin's geopolitical victory for a generation ahead and a catastrophe for the US and its allies." According to Politico, Putin's victory in the battle for Nord Stream 2 seriously hit NATO's ability to deter the enemy and that compromise prevailed. International Business Editor of The Daily Telegraph Ambrose Evans-Pritchard called the project the Molotov-Ribbentrop gas pipeline, and added "it is not an unhappy spectacle. Washington and Berlin have together decided Ukraine’s grim fate between them."

As expected, the Ukrainian authorities criticised the US President and the German Chancellor as well, apparently being dissatisfied with their assurances. According to local Ukrainian media, Kiev hopes for more specific guarantees during the visit of Vladimir Zelensky to Washington, which is likely to take place in late August. Olga Stefanishina, Deputy Prime Minister for European and Euro-Atlantic Integration of Ukraine, said that these should be exactly guarantees: “Kiev should receive guarantees, not agreements concerning its territorial integrity and sovereignty.”

Kiev also has high hopes for the Crimean Platform summit, which will be held in Ukraine on August 23 at the initiative of Vladimir Zelensky. The reported purpose of creating such a platform is to explain to Ukrainians, Crimeans and the international community the events that took place on the Crimean peninsula in 2014. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba called on all countries to join the Crimean Platform to protect their own interests. However, the US President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris have already refused to personally join the Crimean Platform summit in Kiev...

What's next?

Is an escalation of the conflict in southeastern Ukraine possible? This question still remain relevant, as neither has it been confirmed, nor denied. Obviously, the parties are raising their geopolitical stakes. At least the statements and actions of Russia in this case are quite unambiguous. Certain signals are also coming from Ukraine. For example, on July 26, the former Deputy Minister for the Temporarily Occupied Territories and Internally Displaced Persons of Ukraine Yuriy Hrymchak made an appearance on the local TV channel Obozrevatel, where he said that Ukraine should prepare the army for the liberation of Donbass. Although no one would reasonably compare the military potentials of Russia and Ukraine, the Ukrainian army has recently become more equipped and modern, and Moscow takes this into account in all possible scenarios.

In addition, the situation is also getting tense because Russia is preparing for parliamentary elections, while there is a ‘creeping’ change of the government in Ukraine. For example, the powerful Ukrainian Minister of Internal Affairs, Arsen Avakov, resigned on 13 July without providing any explanation. It has been suggested that the US asked Avakov to step down after he met with the US envoy George Kent on July 12. President Zelensky has never concealed his desire to get rid of Avakov, who had too much power in his hands. It is also reported that the president will also replace the ministers of defense, justice, culture, and the head of the Central Bank. He is believed to be preparing for his re-election in 2024, despite his promise back in 2019 that he will only serve one term. The participation of Donbass residents in the Russian parliamentary elections also bears the risk of escalating the current situation.

It is clear that we are going to see a new situation around Ukraine. This issue will most likely become central in the remaining six months. Unfortunately, there is also an ongoing possibility of  full-scale military escalation of the conflict situation…