Normandy summit results as expected, with larger Donbas issues unresolved

The Normandy Format summit to resolve the warfare in
Donbas, held on Dec. 9 in Paris, produced a few tangible results and deadlines
to ease the situation on the ground, but left the larger political issues
surrounding the conflict unresolved. The immediate achievements were an
all-for-all prisoner exchange to be completed by the year end, committing to
the latest ceasefire by the year end (three Ukrainian soldiers were killed in
fighting on Dec. 9) and creating additional border crossings to occupied Donbas
this month, as mentioned in the Paris summit’s official communique. At the
political level, the parties agreed to the goal of setting the conditions for
holding local elections in Donbas in four months, as well as agreeing to adopt
as Ukrainian legislation an agreed-upon version of the Steinmeier formula to
implement the Minsk Accords. Other key points in the communique were conducting
a mutual withdrawal of forces from three additional frontline areas by March
2020, during which time another meeting of the Normandy Format is to be held in
Berlin. Agreements still need to be reached to ensure that the legal aspects of
the current law on the local self-governance in certain districts of Donetsk
and Luhansk will function on a permanent basis, the communique said. Demining
efforts will continue.

Among the numerous unresolved issues was how to
transfer control of the Russian-Ukrainian border in occupied Donbas, with
Ukrainian President Zelensky wanting that to occur before elections, while
Russian President Putin insisting on afterwards, as indicated in the Minsk
Accords. Putin also continued to insist on amending the Ukrainian Constitution
to guarantee special status for the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, what is widely
considered to be de facto autonomy. German Chancellor Merkel called for the
OSCE special monitoring mission to conduct its observations of fighting along
the separation line on a 24/7 basis, to which the Ukrainian president reportedly
agreed to, said the eurointegration.com.ua news site.

The summit extended for hours beyond the planned
schedule until about midnight, after which Merkel and Putin expressed their
satisfaction with the results. On the other hand, Zelensky said he had hoped
for more to be accomplished. In his statement to the press, Zelensky repeated
his red lines that he remains committed to. “Firstly, the impossibility of
federalization. Ukraine is a unitary state, which is an immutable article in
its Constitution and an inviolable principle of its existence. Secondly, the
impossibility of anyone having any influence on the vector of movement and
development of Ukraine, which is an independent, self-reliant, democratic
state, whose vector of development is determined exclusively by its people. The
third is the impossibility of compromises in resolving the situation in eastern
Ukraine through concessions on territory within the bounds of internationally
recognized borders. For every Ukrainian, Donbas and Crimea are Ukraine,”
Zelensky said in his statement.

Zenon Zawada: The
summit’s results fell in line with expectations, with agreements on a few
tangible issues – particularly an all-for-all prisoner exchange and creating
new border checkpoints – yet the key geopolitical issues remaining elusive.
Vague statements made by Ukrainian President Zelensky and his delegation
regarding issues subject to further talks and compromises are part of what we
believe to be a deliberate strategy of softening the blow of what we expect to
be a gradual capitulation to Putin’s demands. An example of this was statements
made to reporters afterwards by Interior Minister Arsen Avakov, a member of the
Ukrainian delegation who can be considered to be the personal envoy of Ihor
Kolomoisky at the summit. He said Ukraine could agree to regain control of the
border two days before local elections are held, rather than a month.

Meanwhile, Presidential Aide Andriy Yermak has suggested amending
the Constitution to allow for Donbas de facto autonomy to accommodate Putin’s
demands. Avakov also proposed the creation of a joint municipal police force
that includes Ukrainian officers, as well as those drawn from the local territories,
once illegally armed formations are removed. Many of these officers are likely
to have served in the Donbas armies, and their presence in a police force would
draw protests from the Maidan electorate, which opposes any amnesty.

Ultimately, the Dec. 9 summit in Paris served its
purpose of reanimating serious talks about resolving the war in Donbas,
enabling Zelensky to establish a rapport with the other heads of state
(particularly with Putin), and gaining some tangible results on the ground. The
summit enabled Zelensky to demonstrate to the Ukrainian public that he is a
legitimate politician, who has the ability and knowledge to conduct himself in
high-pressure situations. (Of course, even if Zelensky is interested in
conceding – which we believe he is – it would have been foolish nonetheless to
have done so in one fell swoop in Paris.) 

And even if President Zelensky sticks to his idealism
and believes he can balance the interests of the West and Russia (as numerous
presidents had tried to do before him, but out of pragmatism), we believe he
will eventually be forced to capitulate to Russian demands (this time out of
pragmatic concerns). The prospect of cheap natural gas is very alluring, as it
would solve many of Zelensky’s political problems.

If he doesn’t find agreement with Putin, then he
will start to lose the support of his core supporters by the summer. They will
join the ranks of the millions who want an end to war and renewed ties with
Russia, millions of the maidan electorate who think Zelensky is too soft on
Russia (no matter what he does at this point), and the millions opposed to the
land market.