Ulad Vialichka: The one who benefited most from the “Normandy four” negotiations was Lukashenka

Ukraine can’t combine hostilities with the active phase of reforms – without diminishing the conflict it looks like a war on two fronts.

A fifteen-hour negotiation marathon of the “Normandy four” ended in announcement of the Declaration of the presidents in support of the package for implementation of Minsk agreements adopted on February 12, 2015 and in announcement of the package itself adopted by the contact group on settling the situation in Ukraine. Each party to negotiation explains Minsk agreements to their own benefit.

But are the documents agreed upon in Minsk able to bring peace to Ukraine? Ulad Vialichka, the head of the International Consortium “EuroBelarus”, comments upon the agreements reached during the Minsk meeting by the “Normandy four”.

- The agreements signed within the frames of “Normandy four” negotiations have been referred to as another ceasefire, but not peace. How do you assess this result?

- For now I tend to agree with this assessment. Despite the fact that the documents were adopted with the assistance of the presidents, all their former actions testified about the intention to continue hostilities, not to stop them. To make conclusions about stable or unstable character of Minsk agreement we should wait until February 15, when the cease-fire is to start working.

It seems that the main goal of the Minsk agreement is to stop the active phase of the military confrontation in Donbas.

- Who has benefited from the new “Minsk agreements”? Illarionov is convinced that Putin got all that he wanted and took no responsibilities upon himself.

- I am not a military expert to make such global conclusions.

The one who benefited most from the “Normandy four” negotiations was Aliaksandr Lukashenka. He won because such kind of agreement was signed in Minsk with participation of the heads of France and Germany. Lukashenka keeps exploiting the topic of “peacemaker” or Belarus as a place for peacemaking negotiations.

The main thing is that the agreement about the ceasefire was reached; if the fire really stops, civilians who are in the zone of military actions will benefit most from it.

- Why did Ukraine agreed upon the initially losing conditions?

- I cannot interpret the agreement in this way; Minsk agreement can be called a compromise. Poroshenko, being interested in cessation of hostilities was aiming for this compromise. Ukraine can’t combine hostilities with the active phase of reforms – without diminishing the conflict it looks like a war on two fronts.

If we consider special status for separate areas of Donetsk and Lugansk regions, it is impossible to think about Minks agreement without this step. We should have expected that these territories would be marked specifically; however, we are talking about federalization, not about autonomy there.

There are some provisions in Minsk agreement, which are impossible to fulfill, such as an obligation to change its Constitution taken by Ukraine, although this is exclusively the prerogative of the Ukrainian people, and no president could take this obligation upon him- or herself.

- Does it mean that those who compare Minsk negotiation with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk for Ukraine are right?

- The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk became the basis for remaking borders. I don’t know to which degree it can be assessed as peace; it was rather a temporary agreement.

In our case we can talk about a formation of a peculiar “Transdniestria” in Ukraine’s body, which explains, why Russia was behaving in such a way.

I wouldn’t hurry to state the fact that these territories are separated from Ukraine, as if the borders were remade, the agreement would somehow touch upon the question of Crimea.

- What situation did the EU put itself into after signing “Minsk agreements”?

- I see no tragic moments in this agreement. At least because I personally don’t understand the role Merkel and Holland were playing: did they represent the heads of France and Germany or did they represent the EU, i.e. did they guarantee the firmness of Russia-Ukraine agreements or did they step as a third force, which forced this or that party to a certain decision?

The role of the EU in signing the Minsk agreement is absolutely unclear.

The only thing that matters to the EU is de-escalation of a military conflict at the territory of its eastern neighbor. I don’t know how much the EU was concerned with the price factor for peace in Ukraine, as well as it’s hard for me to say why the terms of Minsk agreement are such losing for Ukraine.

- What’s next? There are no guarantors of peace; Kremlin that launched the war won the diplomatic round of the war. It seems that Putin freed its hands re further actions in Ukraine.

- We hardly should expect new scenarios of situation development in Ukraine. The main question is how stable are agreements signed in Minsk? If they come to be stable, then we should proceed from the fact that there are territories that don’t live according to Ukraine’s laws and don’t yield to Kiev.

Instability of Minsk negotiations will lead to situation’s kickback, to the renovation of hostilities.

However, we can only start talking about the viability of Minsk agreements in a week or two.