East of Ukraine: a dead end or dialogue?

Will the meeting in the Norman format take place?

Vitaly Portnikov: Holding a meeting at the highest level of the leaders of the countries of the so-called Norman format is still in question, how to question any real Russian-Ukrainian agreements that could withdraw a peace process out of the impasse. Why is it not possible to agree either under the former President Petro Poroshenko, or with his successor to Vladimir Zelensky? And will it really be possible to move the peace process from the dead point? We will talk about all this in the studio with the former deputy minister for the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine Georgy Tuka and journalist Taras Berezovts . In touch with us from Washington, political analyst Andrei Piontkovsky . Now the plot is about how events are developing.

Correspondent: the new authorities of Ukraine consider one of their priorities to achieve peace in the east of the country. However, both public activists and parliamentary opposition warn: at the cost of such a world there may be surrender to Moscow. The date of the meeting of the leaders of the states of the Norman Four, Ukraine, Germany, France and Russia-has not been agreed upon to resolve the armed conflict in the Donbass. At the initiative of France President Emmanuel Macron, this meeting should take place in Paris.

The Kremlin calls the signing of the document with the so-called "Steinmeier formula" (Frank-Walter Steinmeier-President of Germany, a former German Foreign Minister) for conducting the highest level negotiations at the highest level. The formula involves the entry into force of the law on the features of local self -government in certain areas of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions first on a temporary basis, and after holding free elections there - in permanent. The law, which actually involves the provision of a special status to the Donbass, was adopted by the Verkhovna Rada five years ago, and it defines the rights of the region, in particular, to use the Russian language, the formation of their police units and judicial authorities, and the possibility of special foreign economic relations with the Russian Federation. Speaking in the Verkhovna Rada, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Vadim Zableko said that he agreed to the "Formula Steinmeier", which was discussed on September 2 in Berlin was discussed by advisers to leaders of the Norman Four countries.

Negotiations on the decision of the conflict in the east of Ukraine are carried out not only in the Norman format, but also in the framework of the tripartite contact group in Minsk - with the participation of Ukraine, Russia and the OSCE. On September 18, the Ukrainian delegation, led by former President Leonid Kuchma, refused to approve the general version of the Steinmeier Formula, saying that the signing of such a document would cause protests in the country. And the first action under the slogan “We will not allow surrender!”, Having gathered about two thousand participants, took place in Kyiv at the walls of the Office of the President of Ukraine on the evening of September 19. The implementation of the Steinmeier Formulas, as the protesters stated, will lead to elections in the Donbass under the control of the Russian military and the loss of Ukraine of sovereignty.

In response to criticism and protests, the President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky said that local elections in certain areas of Donetsk and Lugansk regions can be held only under Ukrainian law, after the withdrawal of Russian armed groups and military equipment. Meanwhile, experts are confident that the recently held exchange of concluded between Ukraine and Russia is only one of the points of broad agreements between Zelensky and Putin, and their component, obviously, is the “Steinmeier formula”, which was categorically rejected by the previous Ukrainian power. The recognition of this formula is said by its critics, will lead to elections in the Donbass on Russian conditions: forced immigrants, representatives of the Ukrainian parties, and the eastern section of the border - with a length of more than four hundred kilometers will not be able to take part in the elections.

Vitaly Portnikov: More recently, it seemed that the holding of the Norman summit was a resolved issue, although the Kremlin constantly said: yes, there would be a meeting, but if there is a specific result. And now, after the Ukrainian side refused to agree with the interpretation of the so -called "Steinmeier formula", which the Russian side proposes, it became clear that leaders could meet in October, but may not meet at all. Is there in principle the possibility of any constructive negotiations?

The Kremlin’s position was absolutely transparent: further meetings make sense only if the possible results are possible

Georgy Tuka: Any two parties, negotiating, agree on something in order to come to the final result. The Kremlin’s position was absolutely transparent, it was clearly formulated back in 2016: further meetings make sense only if possible results are possible. By the way, Petro Poroshenko had the same position. After the victory of Vladimir Zelensky, our new young president really wants to show that he is much more effective and effective than the previous president of Ukraine. Unfortunately, one of those fields on which I want to show the result is chosen precisely the field of Russian-Ukrainian relations.

The start of the Norman meeting was taken with naivety and energy, it was absolutely categorically declared: the meeting will be, I discussed with Macron, I agreed with Merkel ... Yes, this was the supporters of Vladimir Zelensky to the next expectations, but in fact, everything turned out to be, alas, absolutely realistic. Everyone perfectly understood that the issue of war and peace does not lie in Poroshenko's maliciousness. There is a completely different character who lives in a completely different country, and the keys to the world, which our politics so loves about, still lie in the Kremlin, and not in Kyiv. And now this insight comes, I think, painful for the pride of Vladimir Zelensky. God forbid that it is not painful for our state.

Vitaliy Portnikov: At the Yalta initiative in Kiev, former President of Ukraine Leonid Kuchma said that if the Norman summit will take place, then Zelensky will be alone against the three, French President Emmanuel Macron, the Federal Chancellor of Angela Merkel and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Until recently, the disposition was different: Macron, Merkel and Poroshenko, and before that Olland, Merkel and Poroshenko were pressed against Putin. Andrei Andreevich, do you agree with the opinion of President Kuchma that the disposition has changed so seriously not in favor of Ukraine?

Andrey Piontkovsky: Absolutely. And this is not the only indicator of a change in this position. Let's start with Russia's admission in PACE. What are the active requirements or proposals of Macron and Trump to return Russia to the "big eight"? The fact that the Ukrainian dossier is closed for the West is clear with it what to do. This three that will resist Zelensky is a big question whether it will resist him, or it will be a four.

Why did the foreign policy positions of Ukraine fall so much? Because for many months of the election campaign and after the coming to power, those political forces that defeated, their main thesis was the struggle against the so -called "party of war." Well, they wanted to denigrate as much as possible, to humiliate Poroshenko, but they really did not understand that, declaring Poroshenko by the "Party of War", they announced the "party of war" by the Ukrainian state during the five years when Poroshenko was the president? In what position did they put the same France and Germany, which, we must pay tribute to them, were on the side of Ukraine in this confrontation? So they supported the criminal "party of war"? Do you want the West to be more pro -Ukrainian than Ukraine? It is simply impossible. In Washington, it is well known what efforts to the friends of Ukraine cost every step of its support, what resistance of the same President Trump had to and has to overcome the American military-political establishment, whose position is articulated by Volker. This fragile balance between the friends of Ukraine and the supporters of the deal with Putin, of course, was violated, first of all, by the official position in Ukraine, with all this denunciation of the so -called "party in power".

Vitaly Portnikov: There were already many "parties of the war" and "party parties" in my memory. In 2014, the "Party of War" was the Arseniy Yatsenyuk party, and Petro Poroshenko was the "Party of the World". In 2019, Petro Poroshenko became the "party of war", and Vladimir Zelensky became the "party of the world". Interestingly, and Vladimir Zelensky himself may suddenly turn out to be a "party of war", and as a "party of the world" will someone else appear, Viktor Medvedchuk, for example?

Taras Berezovets: Viktor Medvedchuk has long been applying for leading the "party of the world." In my opinion, he successfully pushes Vladimir Zelensky in the position of the leader of the “party of the war”, because there can be no “parties of the world”. The Kremlin will appoint an official "party of the world". In 2014, he wanted to see Petro Poroshenko as the leader of the Party of the World, but it did not work out. Then he saw Vladimir Zelensky, and now, of course, he returns to his good old acquaintance Viktor Medvedchuk.

Changes in the foreign policy situation around Ukraine are quite clear. After the election of Vladimir Zelensky to the post of President of Ukraine, the Western leaders saw the opening window of opportunities. All a long time ago, the constant introduction of sanctions against Russia, restrictions on doing business, a huge number of restrictions in which Trump and Macron were forced to drive themselves. Each time they had to explain to Western society why they meet with Putin, why this is not so bad: “In fact, we are not going to normalize relations with him, because there is Ukraine” ... Ukraine was largely washed by the eye and Trump and Macron.

And now they saw for themselves a window of possibilities associated with the fact that an absolutely inexperienced president won in Ukraine, who has no idea what was happening in the country because his business was tied to Russia. In fact, he lived in Ukraine, but, paradoxically, he did not live Ukraine. When they realized that now there is an opportunity to solve the problem at the expense of Ukraine, from that moment everything has changed. The fact that Macron invited Zelensky before the second round, before the election, it leads to strong suspicions, because the information leaked, that they just persuaded him, convinced: you, a guy, would succeed, in fact, the "bad" Poroshenko could not agree because he could not, but because they did not want to ... They, thus, strengthened the internal beliefs of Mr. Zelensky in what he has nothing Mystical knowledge is capable of agreeing with Putin now. When Mr. Zelensky, yesterday’s comedian, directly call people such as Trump and Macron, and Macron takes him twice in his palace, agree, a person’s conceit will grow, just fantastically take off.

And in this situation, unfortunately, mechanisms that no one wants to see, including people who understand what a dangerous line we are standing, begin to turn on. The danger of the situation lies in the fact that the diplomacy of Mr. Zelensky ... It is he who, according to the constitution, is responsible for foreign policy, and he begins to move the Red lines further and further, they move so far that we will soon lose them somewhere beyond the horizon. And in this case, the following inevitably happens: people, for whom what is happening is absolutely unacceptable, call this, in fact, the surrender of the country's interests. We speak first of all about ATO veterans - these are tens of thousands of people. Mr. Belko in Kiev threatened to blow up one of the central bridges of the metro, because, in his opinion, the Donbass is undergoing. This, unfortunately, is the chaos script that no one can not only control, but even predict. Now these dangerous mechanisms are beginning to work.

Vitaly Portnikov: What can be advised to President Vladimir Zelensky in order to continue the dialogue with Russia, not to cause destabilization in the country and achieve some real results?

Putin does not need some separate pieces of Ukrainian territory, he needs control over the whole of Ukraine

Andrey Piontkovsky: We must clearly understand what Putin’s plan is. He does not need some separate pieces of Ukrainian territory, he needs control over the whole of Ukraine. The means for this, after the failure of the Novorossiya project, was chosen by its interpretation of the Minsk agreements: without changing anything to controlled territories, while preserving the Russian military, special services, political leadership from Moscow, to pour this cancer tumor into the political body of Ukraine, to force Ukraine all this to legalize as its territory and thus undermine the development of Ukraine along the European trajectory. This is about the same as if Israel was offered to accept gas, reunite with the gas while maintaining Hamas power there. There was such a historical precedent. In 1952, Comrade Stalin unexpectedly proposed the unification of Germany, that is, he proposed to accept the GDR along with the Stasi, Soviet troops, the socialist unified party of Germany. Adenauer then said a significant phrase: it is better for me to be half-German, but entirely than all of Germany, but half.

I would advise Vladimir Zelensky the same thing. It is necessary to end the game of the so -called restoration of territorial integrity and, responding to the mandate of its voters, focus on the actual breeding of troops, a real ceasefire, with the introduction of peacekeepers on the line of breeding. To stop the war and the death of people is the task that can be fulfilled. Continuing to work in the Norman format - this means how the colleague said correctly, moving the red line, step by step to go to surrender. It is very significant that Mr. Kuchma refused to take the first step towards this surrender, to sign the so -called "Steinmeier formula".

Georgy Tuka: Leonid Danilovich, unlike Vladimir Alexandrovich, is a man with incommensurably great life and political experience: of course, he could not afford such a suicidal luxury, how to put a signature under this Filkin Certificate, which is called the Steinmeier's Formula. I agree with Andrei Andreevich: Putin's interests are far from limited to individual areas. But I want to pay attention to the fact that President Vladimir Zelensky is not talking about the restoration of territorial integrity: it is about stopping shooting. This is not quite the same. For example, I have never heard any real messages from the president to restore the sovereignty of Ukraine over the Crimea. In addition to a well -known phrase about two children who were taken away, I can not remember any more thesis on this topic.

As for Donbass ... The president is primarily a media person of the system, and under the face of the system there are podcasts, as it is fashionable to say now, the second, third level. I look at the budget submitted now for 2020 and I do not see, for example, articles about subvention to create temporary housing for forced immigrants. In 2016, we fought with Danilyuk when he was the Minister of Finance, and barely scratched 16 million with blood, and Lyashko received 800 for fire engines. When this law was adopted, I was the only one in the government bed, who did not get up and did not applaud after the vote, I was just humanly ashamed. Then, again, fighting with Danilyuk, we managed to double the figure by incredible efforts, and we received 34 million. And now - zero. From my point of view, it is the second executive branch of power that simply demonstrates the attitude to this problem.

Alas, I am not an optimist. In general, I think that this is complete nonsense, when people who consider themselves politicians begin to tell that by the end of the year we can do something: either stop shooting, or divorce the troops. You were at least once on the forefront, do you even understand what you are talking about? Moreover, in no international meeting, not in any voiced plan, I have never seen a solution to one significant issue - about the future of weapons. As for the regular Russian army, everything is clear, there people are disciplined: they received an order - they gathered and went out in three days. But what to do with the armament that has been imported to the Donbass for five years? Will Putin agree to leave him under the control of the Kyiv junta? On the other hand, it is good if Russia takes this weapons, but on what legal grounds: you are not there, weapons are not yours! At a meeting in the Norman format, Putin said: maybe this is ours, but now we do not belong to us.

Taras Berezovets: I have a very simple advice: Mr. Zelensky needs to get the notes of Mr. Poroshenko and Mr. Klimkin, in which through trial and mistakes ... He said in the same way in Minsk that he would be able to agree, but ultimately realized that this was impossible. The evolution, which occurred to him during 2016-19, I think, inevitably waits for Mr. Zelensky. И чтобы не тратить время и в конечном итоге прийти к тому же, к чему пришел Порошенко, он должен уже сейчас признать это и сказать, что с Путиным можно договориться только на условиях Путина, никакого другого пути не существует. Его развилка очень проста: или ты соглашаешься с Путиным на условиях Путина, и тогда тебя ждет очень серьезный гражданский конфликт как минимум внутри страны с непредсказуемыми последствиями, или ты идешь по очень сложному и кровавому пути (поскольку Кремль в обозримом будущем не прекратит эту войну), но четко понимаешь, что следуешь в русле национальных интересов.

Да, ситуация вокруг Украины поменялась, к сожалению, в худшую сторону, наши западные партнеры не готовы сегодня так нас поддерживать: господин Пионтковский совершенно справедливо об этом сказал. Я каждый год езжу в Штаты и наблюдаю это: да, в США каждое решение, которое касается Украины и направлено против России, приходится буквально вырывать зубами. Ситуация с Европейским союзом еще хуже. К сожалению, не существует другого пути, кроме как каждую минуту думать о том, как отстаивать свои интересы, где мы потеряем, но что мы отстоим. Поэтому конспекты господина Климкина и господина Порошенко – это то, что сегодня должен использовать господин Зеленский, а не непонятные советы его советников, которые в 99% случаев абсолютно некомпетентны. Ему надо обращаться к опыту тех людей, которые собственной кровью и потом пришли к этим выводам, хотя бы для того, чтобы проанализировать ошибки.

Виталий Портников: Вы сказали, что нельзя добиться договоренностей с Россией, но можно завершить войну. Я, честно говоря, не уверен, что это реально достижимо: мне кажется, Путин не заинтересован в том, чтобы что-то завершать, пока Киев не идет на его условия. Есть и такая точка зрения, и она подтверждается практикой.

Нужно сосредоточиться на действительном разведении войск, действительном прекращении огня, с введением на линию разведения миротворцев

Andrey Piontkovsky: Yes. Кстати, прекрасное доказательство тому, что вы сказали, мы получили на встрече в Минске. Я видел это по российскому телевидению. Луганский представитель проболтался. Отказались от почти согласованного уже разведения войск в двух пунктах. Этот человек сказал: пока не будет продвижения в политических вопросах, не будет никакого разведения. То есть стрельба на границе, гибель военнослужащих и мирных жителей – это тот шантаж, который осуществляет Путин в отношении Зеленского, чтобы подтолкнуть его на принятие своей политической повестки дня.

Виталий Портников: Как вы считаете, будет встреча в нормандском формате? Добьется Зеленский встречи с Путиным?

Георгий Тука: Если такая встреча будет анонсирована, то это сигнал сдачи национальных интересов. Путин – не тот человек, который будет встречаться ради того, чтобы просто поговорить.

Тарас Березовец: Путин может пойти на эту встречу только тогда, когда до нее будут согласованы все пункты политического соглашения, которые он хочет видеть зафиксированными на бумаге за подписью Зеленского. Индикатором того, что происходит сдача национальных интересов Украины и мы идем по российскому сценарию, будет согласие Зеленского и Путина провести такую встречу. И наоборот, чем дольше не будет происходить эта встреча, тем спокойнее я буду себя чувствовать: это говорит о том, что Зеленский не идет на условия Путина.

Я все же верю в лучшее, считаю, что господин Зеленский должен видеть опасные знаки внутри страны, ведь очень многие люди готовы защищать достижения Украины последних пяти лет. Поэтому я думаю, что эта встреча в нормандском формате в ближайшее время невозможна.

Виталий Портников: Насколько я понимаю, господин Путин хотел бы, чтобы господин Зеленский не просто согласился на какие-то условия, которые выдвигает Москва, а чтобы он публично на них согласился.

Георгий Тука: Конечно, это главная составляющая требования.

Тарас Березовец: Мы же не знаем, о чем Путин говорил с Зеленским, когда речь шла о так называемом обмене заложниками. Сейчас уже появляется много информации о том, что они могли, в том числе, обсуждать некие публичные обязательства господина Зеленского, которые он готов был на себя взять. Поэтому Путин сейчас может находиться в ярости из-за того, что господин Зеленский не выполняет обещанного.

Георгий Тука: Давайте вспомним три фразы, которые, с моей точки зрения, характеризуют нынешнюю ситуацию. Министр иностранных дел Украины характеризует выдачу Цемаха : мы вынуждены были это сделать. Через день его фраза: мы наблюдаем потепление взаимоотношений. Фраза по поводу якобы согласия Украины подписать эту "формулу Штайнмайера": мы вынуждены искать компромисс. Так мы вынуждены, или где-то есть какой-то компромисс? Покажите, на какой компромисс идет агрессор!