OSCE mission leader declines to identify direct Russian role in Donbas warfare

Alexander Hug, the deputy chief of the OSCE special monitoring
mission in Ukraine, declined to identify Russia’s direct role in the armed
conflict in the Donbas region in an interview published on the
foreignpolicy.com news site on Oct. 25. When asked what is the OSCE’s official
stance on Russian involvement in óastern Ukraine, Hug limited his comments to
describing incidents that could have involved Russian military personnel. “We
have seen convoys leaving and entering Ukraine on dirt roads in the middle of
the night in areas where there is no official crossing,” he said. “In one
border area, we’ve also made this public, including some footage we have put
out. We have seen specific types of weapons that we have described in detail,
including electronic welfare equipment. We have spoken to prisoners taken by the
Ukrainian forces who claim to be members of the Russian armed forces fighting
on rotation in Ukraine.”

In the same description of incidents possibly
involving Russians, Hug made a comment downplaying the sightings of Russian
military personnel that drew the outrage of Ukrainian officials and mass media.
“We have seen men with the insignia of the Russian Federation, but you can buy
this jacket anywhere,” Hug said. “We have also seen the insignia of Germany,
Spain and others – but also of the Russians.” The interview is likely to be
among the last given by Hug, who will conclude his tenure this month.

Hug’s comments were immediately criticized by Iryna
Gerashchenko, the first deputy head of Ukraine’s parliament and among Ukraine’s
representatives at the Trilateral Contact Group in Minsk. The very monitoring
mission led by Hug records every week the presence of contemporary Russian
radars, tanks and other military hardware, she wrote on her Facebook page.
“Russian. Contemporary. Not Soviet. The type you can’t buy at the bazaar and
can’t paint the Russian flag over (Soviet) stars,” she wrote. She also added
more evidence of Russian involvement, such as the OSCE’s inability to access
the MH17 plane crash site and to access the site of the murder of Donetsk People’s
Republic leader Alexander Zakharchenko, where Russian Federal Security Service
(FSB) agents worked.

Zenon Zawada: Since the
evidence of Russia’s direct role in the armed conflict Donbas is overwhelming
(including audio recordings of Russian officials planning their military
actions in the region), we can only conclude that Hug is well aware of the
Russian role and made his statements out of political concerns. Not only does
Hug want to ensure that his successor has good relations with the Russians, who
control access to the Donbas region. He also needs for the OSCE to have
continued access to dialogue and communication with the Russians, which could
be jeopardized with accusations that haven’t been proven in any court of law.

It’s obvious to most Westerners, who are somehow
involved or familiar with the events in Ukraine, that Russia is playing a
direct role in the armed conflict in Donbas. So Hug’s comments won’t mean much
to them and will be understood for their political utility. Yet they could be
submitted by Russian lawyers in the international courts to defend against
Ukrainian attempts to gain criminal convictions and compensatory damages for
the military aggression in Donbas.