Leadership of ukraine in the minsk process

1. 1 LEADERSHIP OF UKRAINE IN THE MINSK PROCESS: attitude of the citizens towards the first steps of reintegration of separate districts of Donetsk and Luhansk regions Analytical note on the results of the first wave of the nationwide survey The materials prepared by the “Kalmius Group” members, consisting of Oleksandr Dmitriev, Mariia Zolkina, Oleksandr Kliuzhev, Oleksiy Matsuka and Vitaliy Syzov Kyiv 2018

3. 3 The key issue in the peaceful settlement of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict in Donbas region is the observance of the Package of Measures for the Im- plementation Minsk Agreements, signed in February of 2015. Since then the parties have failed to move towards effective implementation of the agreements. The main reason is the failure to comply with security clauses related to the implementation of the ceasefire and heavy weapons disengagement. At the same time, a certain progress was achieved in the legislative sphere. For example, in September 2014, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine approved the Laws “On Special Or- der of Local Self-Government in Separate Districts of Donetsk and Luhansk Regions”1 and “On Prevention of the Persecution and Punishment of Participants of Events in Donetsk and Luhansk Regions”2 . Both documents are part of the plan for the implementation of Minsk agreements with Ukraine. The Law on Special Order of Local Self-Gov- ernment in 2015 and 2017 was amended by adding some explanations. Thus, Ukraine has also legally prepared for the possibility of the implementation of Agreements, upon happening of the appropriate conditions, for that to happen in a lawful manner. Due to the existence of the negotiating platform, the Minsk managed to achieve some success in solving humanitarian and infrastructure issues, in particular, resuming of Ukrainian mobile communication on the uncontrolled territory3 and the exchange of prisoners. However, we can talk about a long pause in the peace plan of action implementation and the clinch in the negotiations on the procedure for its implementation and the adoption of the relative judicial decisions. Against this background, at the international level, the calls are increasingly being made for intensification of unilateral implementation of the agree- ments4 . In the conditions of welfare being conducted, it is impossible to fulfil peaceful agreements by only one party. But the Ukrainian authorities have a room for manoeuvre, which, on the one hand, helps to demonstrate not only the desire, but also the will to resolve the conflict, and on the other – not to make unjustified and one-sided compromises with the enemy. The Ukrainian authorities have a real opportu- nity to move forward in two directions, concerning both home and foreign policy. This concerns both the resumption of pension payments to the residents of uncontrolled territory and the progress towards introducing international military peacekeeping forces onto the uncontrolled territory and, accordingly, the international administration as a pledge of initiating a real settlement of the conflict. In addition, such actions would be supported by the majority of Ukrainian citizens. Thus, the results of a sociological survey conducted by GfK Ukraine in April and May of 2018, commissioned by the “Kalmi- us Group”, showed that the ideas aimed at alleviating a situation of the uncontrolled territories residents are substantively supported by the society. The vast majority of the Ukrainians supports the idea of restoring pension payments to the residents of uncontrolled territories. The idea of introducing an the UN Transitional Administration and UN peacekeepers on the territory of uncontrolled regions of Donetsk and Luhansk regions was also supported for the majority of the Ukrainians. At the moment, these steps can become strategic goals of state policy, and public perception of these ideas can accelerate the restoration of national sovereignty. Introduction 1 “On Special Order of Local Self-Government in Separate Districts of Donetsk and Luhansk Regions” http://zakon2.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1680-VII 2 The Verkhovna Rada approved the Law “On Prevention of the Persecution and Punishment of Participants of Events in Donetsk and Luhansk Regions” http://www.rada.gov.ua/news/Novyny/ Povidomlennya/97812.html 3 In the occupied Donetsk, the “Vodafone” mobile connection has been restored – the residents https://www.radiosvoboda.org/a/news/29196740.html 4 Macron demands from Poroshenko quick measures for peaceful solution in Donbas https://goo.gl/f7tVun

4. 4 Review Facilitating the procedure for obtaining pension payments by the residents of uncontrolled territory and moving towards the preparation for the introduction of an international administration will allow Ukraine to act as a driver and even to take the lead in the Minsk process and reaffirm its commitment to the international agreements. To resume payments, the Ukrainian authorities are recommended: • to facilitate the procedures of verification of the Ukrainian citizens living in the occupied territories for receiving payments, eliminate discriminatory barriers and maximize de bureaucratization of the receiving payments process by the citizens living in occupation; • to consolidate the practice of legal enforcement by the Pension Fund of Ukraine of the of Social Security Right regulations for the retired internally displaced persons; • to start an inclusive expert discussion on modalities and formats for the renewal of payments for Ukrainian citizens residing in the temporarily occupied territories; • to form mechanisms of cross-sectoral interac- tion and create an interdepartmental team whose competence will be the practical development of a delegated regulatory framework based on expert recommendations on the formats for resumption of payments for the citizens of Ukraine in the occupation. While reaching a compromise on the format of international engagement in conflict resolution, the Ukrainian authorities should take a proactive stance and ensure the following requirements: • empowerment a peacekeeping mission or other structure of an international peace operation with regard to protecting civilians and preventing acts of violence against them; • to prevent the creation of conditions for the si- multaneous peacekeeping mission operation and illegal military formations existing in the territory where actions of stabilization and rehabilitation are taken; • to provide effective measures to curb the fi- nancing and resource support of illegal military formations, which is a critical issue as for preventing a repeated escalation of the situation; to ensure that the international mission or the relevant operation authorities act exclusively in conformity with the legislation of Ukraine without the creation of temporary provisions that are not part of the Ukrainian governance system.

5. 5 Changes in attitude towards the Minsk: what is happening to public opinion The Minsk agreements remain the key field, within which both further negotiation to resolve the conflict with the Russian Federation and almost all the political and media discourse regarding the temporarily occupied areas of Donbas are coordinated. Public opinion is a factor that must be taken into account for the successful resolution of the conflict, despite the fact that the negotiations are taking place at the international level. There are several key positions and trends that are present in the public’s attitude to the Minsk package of documents and models of conflict resolution that are being discussed. Focus on the search for peaceful conflict solutions A number of sociological and other studies conducted in 2014-2017 show that, as a whole, the population prefers searching for compromises as the main way to resolve the conflict. Besides, the number of those who focus on a compromise increases from region to region as it gets closer to the front line. This is confirmed by the estimates obtained under the “Kalmius Group” research in April of 2018. Thus, while the military operation of the Ukrain- ian Army aiming at a decisive victory is considered effective in resolving the conflict by 44% of the local population in the Western and Central macro regions, in the South their quantity reduces to 38% (and it is only 4% more than those who believe that such an operation, on the contrary, will make the situation worse), in the East there are 30% of them, and 23% are on controlled areas of Donbas. At the same time, 51% of the local residents are convinced that such a campaign will only do harm to the conflict resolution. The national average position as to the effectiveness of such actions predominates to some extent (39%), while 32% see it as a way to make the current situation worse, and another 17% believe that this will in no way affect anything. When it comes to a new wave of a possible direct military invasion of the Russian Federation, it is estimated as a deterioration of the situation in every region. Getting lethal weapons from the United States or other Western countries is also estimated depend- ing on remoteness from the conflict zone: the further away from the front line, the greater the support of this idea (West and Centre). In the South and East, there is almost parity between the opinions on the effectiveness and the harmfulness of such steps, while in Donbas region the most of residents (54%) expect a deterioration of the situation with only a mi- nority (29%) who consider such a step to be effective. In all the macro regions, the citizens assume that within this year (2018) the main efforts to resolve the conflict will be focused on opening a dialogue and negotiations (75% of those polled), while only 19% expect the intensification of hostilities. The military position is becoming more popular with the increas- ing distance from the immediate conflict zone. Priority of international instruments While military actions do not become popular as a method of conflict resolution, the support of other tools that, in the citizens’ opinion, would be effective in solving the problem of war looks even more significant. It is about the possibility of international cooperation. Almost half of the population (48%) is convinced that this effective tool will be compulsion of Russia for concessions through international sanctions and pressure. At the same time, 31% believe that sanctions and pressure in no way will affect Russia in the context of stopping the conflict. There are some regional differences in the estimation of such an in- strument effectiveness: the opinion that the measure is meaningful prevails in all macro regions, except in the government-controlled part of Donbas, where the attitudes are almost equally divided between those who believe that pressure and sanctions will

6. 6 not affect the outcome of the conflict (40%), and those who consider them to be effective (37%). The idea of immediate strengthening the sanctions against Russia by the EU and the US also has critical public support: 55% are “for” the effectiveness of this policy, 29% do not believe that it will make any difference, 13% expect that such actions will make the situation worse. In Donbas, the opinion is different from other regions: the relative majority (43%) does not believe that this will somehow affect the situation, 34% are convinced that it will be effective. The idea of more expanded format of international negotiations, with the possible joining of the EU and the US as well as other international organizations, but without involving representatives of the self-proclaimed “DPR” and “LPR” has even greater public support – 59% believe that this will be effective in the context of resolving the conflict in the East. This position prevails in all macro regions of Ukraine, from 68% in the West – up to 47% in Donbas. The idea of the UN Transitional Administration in the context of the introduction of the peacekeeping forces has the highest support as a method that is considered effective in resolving the conflict – this is the opinion of 60% of the population in all the regions, including Donbas. Citizens of Ukraine are more inclined to believe in the effectiveness of international methods of conflict resolution approaching, which are not always direct- ly related to the Minsk agreements. In particular, the idea of using peacekeepers and the Transitional Administration goes beyond this format, although it may be its follow-up. Internal political “proposals” within the Minsk route and unity in the society One of the most sensitive topics is elections on the uncontrolled territory. The possibility of elections without regaining control over Ukraine-Russia border by Ukraine (it is to be recalled that the process of regaining control have to begin just after holding the elections, according to the Package of Measures dated February 15, 2015), is perceived as unlikely by the Ukrainian public. 59% of the population consider this compromise unacceptable: for 39% it is unacceptable in any case, for another 20% it is more unacceptable than acceptable. Meanwhile, for 37%, such a concession is possible. In the West, Centre and South the prevailing opinion is of the impossibility of such a compromise (66%, 64% and 54% respectively), but in the East and Donbas the public opinion has almost equally divided between those who agree to the elections before regaining control of the border, and those who oppose such an idea. Thus, in the East, 48% consider such a compromise to be unacceptable and 46% think it is acceptable. In Donbas, it is 47% and 46%, respectively. Similar trends are observed in regard to the introduction of the federal form of government: 53% do not agree to this concession, 29% believe it is acceptable and 18% have not chosen sides, although in the East and Donbas there is a tendency to the divi- sion of public opinion. Consent to the particular political relations with Russia of the currently occupied territories is also generally an unacceptable option of compromise: 67% do not perceive this, 25% agree, and 8% have no opinion. Consent to the particular economic relations with Russia of these territories also causes a general reaction of rejection: 64% would disagree, 29% could agree to such a compromise, 7% have no opinion. The unacceptability of certain compromises di- rectly depends on the modalities of their implementation. If the elections before regaining of control over the border are not usually perceived as an acceptable compromise, granting to the occupied territories a certain particular status of autonomy within Ukraine, but after the legal elections thereon under Ukrainian laws and the formation of legitimate local self-government bodies, is estimated somewhat differently. Public opinion is equally divided between those who are ready for such steps, and those who are not ready. Such a compromise looks unacceptable for 48% and acceptable for 48%. If the population is asked to estimate the possibility of granting a certain particular status of au-

7. 7 tonomy within Ukraine, but without holding elections according to Ukrainian legislation, then such an idea is perceived negatively: 72% call it unacceptable and 25% would agree to such a scenario to different ex- tents. Both the idea of granting these territories some autonomy and the idea of limiting the powers of authorities in these territories in comparison with other regions have a fairly high level of support. 73% of citizens support the idea of limiting the powers of authorities in the temporary uncontrolled territories as administrative units of Ukraine in comparison with other regions of the country for some time – until the situation is stabilized. This option is considered unacceptable by 24% of the citizens. This idea has the considerable support in all regions and also on the government controlled territories of Donbas. The study of the “Kalmius Group” showed that public opinion is flexible. The public has no defin- itive vision of what the process of reintegration of temporarily occupied territories should look like. That is why, on the one hand, almost half of the population is ready for an option of granting the autonomous status for these territories (under the certain conditions, to start with: control over the border, legal elections and the formation of legitimate local authorities), but at the same time, more than half of society is ready to another option: limiting the powers of authorities in these territories during the transition period. How to speed up the negotiation process? The resumption of pension payments Political decisions within the Minsk process framework are perceived by Ukrainian society quite controversially. Even social issues that are more likely not the commitments of the Minsk agreements, but the implementation of the Ukrainian legislation (as confirmed, in particular, by the Supreme Court of Ukraine5 ), are also the subject of discussion. Social ties and the fulfilment by the Ukrainian authorities of their obligations to their citizens can become the very factor that today will contribute to maintaining ties with the citizens who live in uncontrolled territory, and in the future will facilitate the process of reintegration in the humanitarian dimen- sion. The payment of pensions to residents of the separate districts of Donetsk and Luhansk regions is in compliance of the Constitution of Ukraine. At the same time, at a diplomatic level, a review of the system of accrual and payment of pensions to the residents of the occupied territories will demonstrate Ukraine’s commitment to the implementation of international agreements. In a situation where negotiations on their implementation have reached a deadlock, it is advisable to focus on the implementation of the Minsk agreements in the directions that will not lead to social tension. In particular, paragraph 8 of the Package of measures for the implementation of Agreements provides for the resumption of payments for the residents of uncontrolled territories6 . For the record, in November 2014, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine blocked the payment of pensions for the people who stayed in the territories controlled by the militants of the self-declared republics and the Russian Federation. The government’s argu- ments were as follows: the physical inability to deliv- er cash to the territories controlled by the militants, as well as a marked reduction in budget revenues from those territories. Blocking payments has caused a mixed public reaction. Critics of these actions believed that the consequences would be the loss of ties arising from 5 https://supreme.court.gov.ua/supreme/pro_sud/zrazkova-sprava/zs_9901_20_18 6 Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements. FULL TEXT https://www.pravda.com.ua/articles/2015/02/12/7058327/

8. 8 the institution of citizenship, observing the violation of citizens’ right to a pension, which is enshrined in the Constitution of Ukraine and a number of legislative acts. At the same time, government decisions also provided for the on-going pensions accounting to the residents of occupied territories in full and special arrangements for the payments, provided that the people are registered as internally displaced persons in the government-controlled territory. This mecha- nism was also criticized by human rights organizations as too bureaucratic, discriminatory and aimed at restricting the rights of the citizens. The situation with massive fictitious registration of the occupied territory residents as IDPs in the populated places near the demarcation line proves the inefficiency of the current system of pensions accounting and verification. The results of the “Kalmius Group” poll show a favourable attitude of Ukrainian citizens towards the idea of resumption of pensions payments to the residents of the uncontrolled territories. In general, 62% of the respondents commend about the possibility of paying pensions to people living in the uncontrolled territories of Donbas. 32%, who consider this dynam- ic to be “unacceptable”, are against the payments: That said, the payment of pensions to the Ukrainian citizens in occupation is considered “rather acceptable” and “unacceptable in any way” by most respondents in all four macro regions of Ukraine: West Centre South East Donbas Total* Unacceptable in any way 14% 15% 15% 9% 8% 13% Rather unacceptable 25% 20% 10% 17% 12% 19% Rather acceptable 23% 26% 25% 23% 28% 25% Quite acceptable 33% 32% 45% 47% 48% 38% Undecided 5% 7% 5% 4% 4% 5% 39% vs. 56% 35% vs. 58% 25% vs. 70% 26% vs. 70% 20% vs. 76% 32% vs. 62% West Centre South East Rather unacceptable 25% 20% 10% 17% 8% Donbas 28% 4% 12% 13% 25% Total* 19% 5% Quite acceptable 33% 32% 45% 47% 48% 38% 39% vs. 56% 35% vs. 58% 25% vs. 70% 26% vs. 70% 20% vs. 76% 32% vs. 62% *From rounding to whole, the amount may vary by ± 1% The requirements of the Minsk process implementation and the demonstration of Ukraine’s re- sponsible position to international partners reinforce the need to reconsider the previous government decisions to block pension payments. To date, the main obstacles to the reconsidera- tion of such decisions are the insecurity and the lack of effective control of Ukraine over separate districts of Donbas, which significantly narrows, although not closes, the window of opportunities for power institutions. The gradual movement toward the resumption of payments is effectively built into of the reintegration process logic and demonstrates adherence to international agreements on the part of Ukraine. Three and a half years have passed since the ter- mination of payments and the context has changed: the relatively quick return of these territories under the control of Ukraine did not take place, as one could still hope in 2014. These territories are recognized as occupied and, in this situation, a change in the approach to building a social policy for the residents of the occupied territory cannot but be reconsidered. Under current circumstances, when a substan- tial part of the ties has been torn apart, actual par- allel political and informational realities have been formed – in the occupied territories and in other regions of Ukraine – the social policy with regard to the ordinary residents of uncontrolled districts should pursue not the goal of pressure, restric- tions, “shut down the channels” (which could have been effective in putting pressure on Russia and self-proclaimed “L/DPR” during the intensive phase of the conflict only at the beginning of self-pro-

9. 9 claimed republics development), but on the contrary, “permissible” openness. This means that to the extent that it does not pose a risk to the Ukrainian side in the negotiation process and in the security sector, Ukraine can be as open as possible to save and maintain ties with its citizens from the temporarily occupied territory. One of the most logical steps in the current situation may be to start reconsidering of the system of accrual and payment of pensions. Given the issue that the right to receive a pension depends on the IDP status, it would be wise to consider abandoning such a dependence. This, on the one hand, would greatly facilitate the lives of internally displaced persons as a whole, since it would allow to reconsider and simplify the current system of the IDP verification, and on the other hand, would make it possible to really change the approach to one of the most sensitive issues for residents of the uncontrolled territories. Supporting the UN Transitional Administration and Understanding its Risks As it was noted, 60% of Ukrainian respondents partially or completely agree that the introduction of the UN Transitional Administration in support of peacekeeping forces to the now occupied territories could be an effective way of resolving the conflict. 13% of the respondents said that this arrange- ment could lead to a deterioration of the situation in the conflict zone, 20% of respondents believe that the activities of the UN Transitional Administration with the support of peacekeeping forces will not affect the development of the situation. 7% of the respondents were unable to estimate the impact of peacekeeping efforts of this kind on the development of the situation. Expectations of the impact of Transitional administrations and peacekeeping forces on the situation in separate districts of Donetsk and Luhansk regions differ in macro regions. Thus, in Donbas, 47% of respondents supported the idea that the Transitional administrations and peacekeepers would be effective in resolving the conflict. Compared to other macro regions, Donbas is less optimistic about such a way of resolving the conflict. The possible effectiveness of the Transi- tional administration and peacekeepers in resolving the interstate conflict was highly appreciated in the centre of the country. Like Donbas, the South is also less optimistic about the possibility of resolving the conflict with the help of international instruments for preserving and building peace than other macro regions of Ukraine (51%). Such differences in indicators may be related to the proximity of individual macro regions to the territory of the conflict. We can assume, that better awareness of the specifics of the current confrontation motivates the citizens to rely more upon them- selves or on the political will of the Ukrainian and Russian leadership to end the conflict than on an ex- ternal factor. West Centre South East Donbas Will make the situation worse 8% 8% 18% 20% 25% Will have no effect 21% 17% 24% 22% 22% Willbeeffectivein resolvingthe conflict 64% 67% 51% 51% 47% Undecided 7% 7% 6% 7% 6%

10. 10 Despite the prevalence of opinion on the Transi- tional administrations and peacekeeping forces effectiveness in the conflict resolving process, a significant number of respondents have an indeterminate or negative attitude towards the prospects for their implementation. 13% of the respondents have negative expectations, 20% of them do not believe in the possibility to change the situation by introducing a Transitional administration and using the peacekeeping forces to support its activities. The most serious claims to the UN peacekeeping missions by outside observers are based on the examples where missions were not able to stop the escalation of armed confrontation and to prevent the massive violence against civilians. In particular, the report of the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations (“Brahimi Report”) became the resonant, critical and at the same time complex7 . Subsequent reports from this group and other UN studies show the urgent need for a careful elabo- ration of international peace missions format. The ill-considered operations of such kind may not lead to an improvement of the situation, but rather to ex- acerbate the conflict nature. Public authorities should make adequate efforts not only to find the best formats to involve the international community, but also to inform the society in a comprehensive way about the various aspects of the proposed settlement models. The most optimistic scenario for involving the international community in resolving the conflict on the territory of separate districts of Donetsk and Luhansk regions provides for the introduction of peace-support operations with a UN mandate. Other forms of international engagement are unlikely to be realistic, given the need for a compromise between Ukraine, its western partners and the Russian Federation. In particular, the participation of other international organizations in such operations may be inappropriate for the Russian Federation, since it will de facto degrade the veto power of this country for the adoption of the UN Security Council decisions. It is about the fact that the deployment of such an operation as part of the UN activity will allow Russia to retain the right to vote at all stages of the process, which could become an acceptable compromise in case of the United States and EU member states effective involvement in the process. The mandate of the future peacekeeping mission should be much broader than the functions of protecting the observers of the existing OSCE mission. The inadequate format of the peacekeeping mission will entail its actual dependence on the militant groups that illegally control parts of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. For the effectiveness of the peacekeeping mission, it is necessary to empower it not only to coun- teract violence and armed destabilization, but also to prevent the resource support of militant groups aimed at disrupting the peaceful process. In the case of a possible peacekeeping mission on the territory of the now occupied Donbas, the problem of ensuring its political balance comes to the fore. It is important to observe the principle of preventing the domination of political allies of the Russian Federation in the operation. For Ukraine, the current practice of a “transitional” legal system in the conflict zone may be unacceptable, given the stable functioning of legal institutions in the country. This problem should be discussed in advance in order to avoid future conflicts between partners who have reached an agreement on the introduction of this or that format by the Transitional Administration. The authorities of Ukraine should pay special attention to informing the public about the progress and intermediate results of negotiations on the introduction of peacekeeping missions or other international operations. Proper awareness of the citizens about the strategy and tactical decisions of the state will avoid excessive politicization of the issue. 7 Identical letters dated 21 August 2000 from the Secretary-General to the President of the General Assembly and the President of the Security Council http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc. asp?symbol=A/55/305

11. 11 This study was presented by the “Kalmius Group” initiative under “Ukraine Confidence Building Initiative” (UCBI ІІ) project, funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The study was made possible thanks to the generous support of the American people through USAID. The product content is the sole responsibility of the “Kalmius Group” and does not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the US Government. “Kalmius Group” is an informal association of Ukrainian analysts whose goal is to promote the restoration of the country’s sovereignty in the temporarily occupied territories of Donetsk and Luhansk regions. Motivation of our Group’s activities is clear and transparent – to contribute eﬀectively and professionally to the restoration of the territorial integrity of the country. The name of the coalition comes from the Kalmius River, which unites the free and temporarily occupied districts of the region and symbolizes the hope of citizens on both sides of the demarcation line to peace- making by stopping the interstate conflict and restoring the unity of Ukraine, the rule of law and order in the territories aﬀected by the armed confrontation. Reference All the study results are in the appendix to the note The survey was conducted by GfK Ukraine. Survey method is telephone interviews with calls to phones. Survey period: from April 14 to May 2, 2018. 1975 respondents, 536 of them from Donetsk and Luhansk regions (territories controlled by the Ukrainian government). The survey was conducted in all regions of Ukraine, except for the uncontrolled part of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts and the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. The sampling error for the whole of Ukraine does not exceed 2.5%, for Donetsk and Luhansk regions — does not exceed 4.9%.

12. 12

Leadership of ukraine in the minsk process

You are reading a preview.

Check these out next

Leadership of ukraine in the minsk process

More Related Content

Slideshows for you (16)

Similar to Leadership of ukraine in the minsk process (20)

More from Donetsk Institute of Information (20)

Recently uploaded (20)