Sunday

12th Jul 2020

Opinion

A Normandy summit of ulterior motives

  • Deja vu? Everybody at Wednesday's Normandy summit is there for a different reason (Photo: kremlin.ru)

At shortest-possible notice, the leaders of Ukraine and Russia, France and Germany meet in Berlin this Wednesday (19 October) to discuss the war in Eastern Ukraine.

This gathering in the so-called Normandy format, at summit level and announced only a day ago, suggests great urgency.

Read and decide

Join EUobserver today

Support quality EU news

Get instant access to all articles — and 20 years of archives. 14-day free trial.

... or subscribe as a group

However, there has been neither a major escalation in the protracted standoff between Moscow-sponsored separatists and the government in Kiev, nor have there been signs of a serious breakthrough for the better.

Moreover, participants themselves have dampened hopes for success. Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko said to “have no heightened expectations”.

This was echoed by German chancellor Angela Merkel’s warning that “one should not expect miracles” from this meeting.

The French government was somewhat more ambitious and stated, as meeting goals, a timetable for Donbass elections and military disengagement.

Meanwhile, for the Kremlin the summit was merely to “compare notes” about the implementation of the Minsk accords, the plan for settling the Ukraine conflict, which was devised by the Normandy quartet.

Two years after signature, these accords have clearly failed. None of their provisions has been fully implemented; fighting is an everyday occurrence; thousands have been killed since the Minsk protocols were inked.

This failure to achieve peace is the result of defects in the agreements and in the political constellation that produced them.

First, the conflict parties remain deeply divided over the priority given to military versus political provisions in the agreement. Ukraine insists that basic security needs to be returned to Donbass first.

This means a full ceasefire, the removal of heavy weaponry and of fighters, and the effective verification that these measures are being implemented by the OSCE.

Russia and its local puppets, in turn, put political measures centerstage and demand that the separatist entities in Donetsk and Luhansk be recognized and legitimated, through a special status and elections.

Dramatic asymmetry

Second, the Minsk setting blurs the role that Russia has played in this conflict. It is beyond doubt, with evidence mounting daily, that Moscow has instigated separatism in eastern Ukraine, equipped and led the armed formations fighting in the Donbass, and organized and bankrolled two illegitimate statelets there.

Yet under the Minsk accords, Russia figures not as foreign aggressor but as peace broker, insisting instead that only direct negotiations between Kiev and Donetsk-Luhansk can end what it portrays as a civil war in Ukraine.

Third, the two actual peace brokers - France and Germany (and with them the entire EU) - are confronted with a dramatic asymmetry of influence over the two sides in the conflict.

The Western powers have far-reaching political and financial leverage in Ukraine, ranging from association and trade agreements through loans to visa liberalization.

Ever since Minsk was signed, Berlin and Paris have brought this weight to bear on Kiev, hoping to exact the necessary concessions to make the peace deal work.

By contrast, political and economic leverage vis-a-vis Moscow is minimal, especially as the EU remains divided on Russia and unwilling to employ its full and considerable arsenal of political, economic and legal sanctions.

This effectively leaves Russia beyond pressure, in impunity and without reasons to compromise.

These fundamental flaws in the Minsk and Normandy formats have not been rectified yet and there is little chance they will be anytime soon. Consequently, peace in Eastern Ukraine remains elusive.

Why meet?

This, naturally, raises the question why the Normandy leaders are meeting at all, and in such a rash manner at that. Arguably, however, each of side has good reasons to attend that extend well beyond the immediate settlement of the conflict in Eastern Ukraine.

For the Ukrainian government, it is important to get the drama in the Donbas back on the international agenda, overshadowed as it has been for several months by the tragedy in Syria.

Kiev has certainly noticed how Moscow’s killing spree in Aleppo has fuelled Western disillusionment and criticism. It draws a straight line between the Russian wars in eastern Ukraine and in Syria, and hopes to turn Western outrage into greater political pressure and additional sanctions against Russia.

At the same time, Kiev may well be hoping that Western governments’ current preoccupation with Moscow’s wars will deflect attention from the reform process in Ukraine which, since the change in government earlier this year, has slowed to a trickle.

For the leaders of France and Germany, the Normandy meeting is obviously preparation for the EU summit a day later. At that meeting, European policy towards Russia will be a central agenda item, and a controversial one at that.

Increasingly over the last months, EU unity on Russia has corroded, threatening to undermine the principled condemnation and sanctions package that Europe issued to Russia in response to its aggression in Ukraine.

In their effort to revive this consensus, to retain the hitherto EU position towards Moscow, and to extend (if not even expand) sanctions, Paris and Berlin will be all the more credible after another round of talks in the Normandy format.

Just as importantly for forging a strong EU stance, German chancellor Angela Merkel, French president Francois Hollande and Russian president Vladimir Putin are also to separately discuss Syria, another major topic for the EU summit.

Russian motive

For his part, the Russian strongman’s attendance at the Normandy summit is just another manoeuvre to undercut European unity.

The increasingly critical and unified position of the EU regarding the Russia’s actions in Syria has certainly not gone unnoticed in the Kremlin.

Consequently, Putin has temporarily halted his bombing campaign in Aleppo and has agreed to another discussion of Donbas.

The purpose of these “concessions” is clear: to strengthen the position of the opponents of sanctions against Russia inside the EU, and to weaken advocates for more robust action to stop the Kremlin’s aggressive conduct.

No sooner the lights switch off in the summit hall, however, the Kremlin can be expected to resume its overt and covert wars.

Today’s Normandy summit will not settle the conflict in Eastern Ukraine. It will, however, forge or fail the EU response to the Russia challenge.

Joerg Forbrig is a senior fellow with the German Marshall Fund of the United States, a think tank

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author's, not those of EUobserver.

Feature

British bank spotlights Russian propaganda

A British bank’s decision to stop working with suppliers of a Kremlin media firm has put the spotlight on Russian propaganda in Europe.

EU shames Russia on Aleppo 'massacre'

The EU has named Russia as being partly responsible for a “massacre” of “historic” proportions in Syria, but ruled out extra sanctions or military force.

Denmark leads Ukraine anti-corruption drive

The EU has unveiled an anti-corruption scheme for Ukraine, amid concerns that its officials and lawmakers are undermining a key reform in the fight against villainy.

Column

The opportunistic peace

This will be the most selfish act in recent economic history. It will burden future generations and by no means make the weakest member states better off.

News in Brief

  1. Citizens' perception of judicial independence drops
  2. Irish finance minister voted in as eurogroup president
  3. Italy's League party opens office near old communist HQ
  4. 'Significant divergences' remain in Brexit talks
  5. Germany identifies 32,000 right-wing extremists
  6. WHO to hold probe of global Covid-19 response
  7. China accuses Australia of 'gross interference' on Hong Kong
  8. EU to let Croatia, Bulgaria take first step to join euro

Revealed: fossil-fuel lobbying behind EU hydrogen strategy

As with the German government – which presented its own hydrogen strategy last month – the European Commission and other EU institutions appear to be similarly intoxicated by the false promises of the gas industry.

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. UNESDANext generation Europe should be green and circular
  2. Nordic Council of MinistersNEW REPORT: Eight in ten people are concerned about climate change
  3. UNESDAHow reducing sugar and calories in soft drinks makes the healthier choice the easy choice
  4. Nordic Council of MinistersGreen energy to power Nordic start after Covid-19
  5. European Sustainable Energy WeekThis year’s EU Sustainable Energy Week (EUSEW) will be held digitally!
  6. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic states are fighting to protect gender equality during corona crisis

Latest News

  1. Michel lays out compromise budget plan for summit
  2. Border pre-screening centres part of new EU migration pact
  3. EU 'failed to protect bees and pollinators', report finds
  4. MEPs give green light to road transport sector reform
  5. If EU wants rule of law in China, it must help 'dissident' lawyers
  6. Five ideas to reshape 'Conference on Future of Europe'
  7. EU boosts pledges to relocate minors from Greece
  8. Hydrogen strategy criticised for relying on fossil fuel gas

Join EUobserver

Support quality EU news

Join us