Minsk negotiations push Ukraine toward federalism

Last week’s defeat of Kiev’s forces at the railway hub of Debaltseve in eastern Ukraine was a naked illustration of how Russia intends to achieve its goals in the Ukraine crisis. 

In negotiations, the Kremlin will talk of peace through common-sense governance reforms such as the federalization of Ukraine. But behind the scenes, the Kremlin will command the separatist forces to make it clear to Kiev that a military resolution of the civil war is out of reach unless it is a total defeat of Ukraine’s armed forces.

The Kremlin’s mastery of European diplomacy and relentlessness heavy weaponry make the gradual failure of Ukraine’s Kiev government and success of Ukraine’s Donbass government appear as inevitable as the changing seasons.

Russian President Vladimir Putin is said to have managed the Feb. 11 and 12 Minsk II negotiations in the capital of Belarus (the first Minsk protocol negotiations were Sept. 5, 2014) with a focus on the immediate cease-fire and the details of Ukraine’s future governance. 

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President François Hollande were not there to mediate so much as to lend support to a deal. The EU has already accepted Putin’s approach to ending the civil war and establishing a stable Ukraine. 

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko is said to have resisted Putin’s assertions stubbornly and to have dragged the proceedings through the night. Putin pressed Poroshenko to agree to a federated Ukraine, just as Germany and Russia are federal states. Under this scenario, Kiev would become a largely ceremonial D.C.-like capital that acknowledges the authority and independence of the states. Each state would possess its own national guard, while the national army would be symbolic and unthreatening. 

Poroshenko countered that Kiev would control Ukraine’s border with Russia. However, Putin insisted that the eastern border be under joint control of Kiev forces and locals — i.e., pro-Russian separatists.

The newly empowered federated states would be constructed on the basis of historical, cultural and political records. The new states would generally be divided between citizens who voted for deposed President Viktor Yanukovych and those who voted for the former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko in Ukraine’s 2010 election runoff. Such a division would create sticky problems because the people along Ukraine’s coast, from Mariupol to Odessa, are heavily in the eastern, pro-Russian camp.

The arming of the two sides of a future partitioned federalized country would be handled the same way as now: Poland would lead the NATO effort to continue to supply weapons, logistics, training and money to the national guards of the western states, and Russia would continue to support the separatists of the eastern states. In this Solomonic fashion, the weapons already supplied to both sides from NATO and Moscow would remain in place. In the near future, the two prospective parts of Ukraine would be heavily armed states in need of international assistance and development.

There is little reason for Washington to send heavy weapons and systems to Kiev. Putin knew this all along and was not bothered by President Barack Obama’s telephone call on the eve of the Minsk II negotiations. Putin heard Obama’s remarks about “costs” to Russian as a threat, though an empty one.

On Feb. 12, after a long night in which Merkel helped guide Poroshenko, the four leaders agreed on a cease-fire starting midnight Feb. 15. Putin wanted the cease-fire deadline delayed a week in order to give time for the pro-Russian separatists to capture Debaltseve and Mariupol. 

Putin ultimately accepted the terms of the Minsk II negotiations even knowing that Poroshenko has little direct control of his military, both regular army and national guard volunteers. Since the Debaltseve defeat, 13 extreme right-wing national guard units have declared themselves at odds with Poroshenko’s government. National guard leader and member of parliament Andriy Biletsky of the Azov Battalion is especially threatening to Kiev, making bald neofascist declarations such as “The historic mission of our nation in this critical moment is to lead the white races of the world in a final crusade for their survival.”

The Kremlin cynically aims to take advantage of Poroshenko’s weak hand in the face of neofascist ferocity by using the facts of the central government’s indiscipline in order to justify carving out more autonomy for the newly empowered federal states.

The Minsk II cease-fire remains in place despite the obvious separatist violations at Debaltseve and the continuing bombardment of Mariupol because the Kremlin believes it has assembled the right balance of diplomacy and military advantage to subdue Kiev and its supporters in the U.S. and NATO.

Merkel and Hollande have signed off on the whole ugly affair because they are overwhelmed with the need to mend the EU’s finances and because they recognize that the future of Europe depends on friendly relations with Russia and its energy sources.

Poroshenko, condemned by his own people for the Debaltseve defeat, must yield to the Kremlin’s maneuvers as prisoner exchanges begin, even as Kiev reports on Russian weaponry such as drones used to bombard the Ukrainian resistance at Mariupol.

This has displeased pro-Poroshenko hawks in Washington. Republican Sen. John McCain spoke disdainfully on national television of the Obama administration’s handling of the crisis and how little Washington has done for Kiev.

“They’re asking for weapons to defend themselves, and they’re being slaughtered, and their military is being shattered,” McCain said.

The Obama administration is resisting the inevitable direction of Minsk II by repeating the hawkish Washington accusation that Russian troops have invaded the Donbass and are leading the separatists. Secretary of State John Kerry spoke in London of harsher new sanctions on Russia because of the cease-fire violations, adding, “Russia has engaged in an absolutely brazen and cynical process over these last days.”

Most hawkish of all, NATO second-in-command Gen. Adrian Bradshaw recently spoke of the possibility that Russia’s ability on short notice to capture Crimea and take command of the rebellion in Donbass “could in future not only be used for intimidation and coercion but to seize NATO territory.”

There are equally hawkish speakers in the Kremlin who argue that the civil war can be settled militarily only by destroying Kiev’s ability to fight. The Kremlin hawks disdain Minsk II’s gradualism. They claim that U.S. Humvees and radar equipment supplied by NATO were captured in the Debaltseve pocket.

Putin remains in charge of the timetable, going slowly in order to keep Merkel and Hollande on board. 

Critically, the Kremlin is expecting that Washington, using its surrogates in Kiev, may be planning new provocations. For example, Kiev is refusing to pull back its heavy weapons from the cease-fire line, accusing the separatists of seeking to capture Mariupol. The Kremlin anticipates that Kiev is building up forces to launch a spring offensive. In this event, the separatist hammering of the front line recently is preparation for a Russian-backed separatist drive on Kiev.