Declaration by the Participants of the Conference “Minsk Agreements – A Path to Conflict Resolution or a Recipe for Disaster?”

1. Declaration
by the Participants of the Conference “Minsk Agreements – A Path to Conflict Resolution or
a Recipe for Disaster?” On the Unacceptability of Imposing Limitations to Ukrainian
National Sovereignty by Means of Implementation of the “Minsk Agreements.”
Among the many reasons that the “Minsk agreements” is unable to bring the desired peace and
violates both the spirit and the letter of the law, as well as the norms and principles of democracy,
we consider the following five to be crucial:
1. The “Minsk agreements” impose on the international community and the Ukrainian society
a myth of the civil war in Ukraine, where Russia is not the aggressor (and thus, not a side of
the conflict), but instead – a mediator in the “settlement.” In truth, the realization of the
proposed “settlement” scenario would lay grounds for a genuine civil confrontation and
would expand Kremlin’s political leverage on the official Kyiv by legalizing the Russia-
created and supported puppet organizations -- the so-called DNR and LNR.
2. The goal of reintegrating the occupied territories into the political, humanitarian and legal
framework of Ukraine with a special status charted and required by the aggressor is to
obstruct the will of the overwhelming majority of Ukrainian citizens in regard to joining the
EU and NATO, and stimulate the centrifugal processes in the rest of the country. That
attempt to impose limited sovereignty on Ukraine clearly, is totally unacceptable to the
Ukrainian society, as the opposition to it was one of the main causes for the Revolution of
Dignity.
3. Granting special status to certain regions outside the control of the central government that
include parts of the state border is a violation of the principle of a unitary state and the
equality of citizens before the law, and could therefore, trigger the fragmentation of the
country, which not incidentally, is one of the techniques of the hybrid warfare.
4. From legal standpoint, the “Minsk agreements” are null and void documents composed with
flagrant violations of the Law of Ukraine “On International Treaties” and that certainly
cannot be above the Constitution. The external dictate of its content contradicts the law and
the principles of democracy. By taking on behalf of Ukraine the obligations concerning the
content and timing of the constitutional amendments, the President had exceeded his
powers, while by starting the procedure for the implementation of these amendments, the
members of the Ukrainian Parliament have exceeded theirs. In Ukraine, the right to
determine and amend the Constitution order belongs exclusively to the Ukrainian people
and usurpation of that right by the state or government officials constitutes state crime
(Article 5 of the Constitution of Ukraine).
5. The sequence of steps provided by the “Minsk agreements” contradict the generally
accepted practice of settling armed conflicts over authority and territory, as the restoration of
security (ceasefire and weapons withdrawal) and stability (the transitional administration
and effective international mechanisms that ensure monitoring and following the agreement
by the conflict parties) must always precede the process of preparing and conducting
elections.
Despite the fact that none of the provisions of the “Minsk agreements” had been fulfilled,
which provided unshakable grounds for declaring them invalid after December 31, 2015, the
politicians continue to insist that there is no alternative to it. The international community
and the Ukrainian society are being deliberately misled in order to ensure that the sanctions
against the aggressor are lifted – the goal that in the absence of a strong and reasoned

2. position of the official Kyiv, Russian diplomats and “Putin’s friends” in the EU work hard
on.
The ensuing constitutional games will not only continue to undermine the legitimacy of the
current government, but will further radicalize the society, deepen the split-lines within the
government itself and strengthen the atmosphere of legal nihilism in Ukraine, which will
certainly have far-reaching negative consequences.
Under such circumstances, in order to:
 return the state to the legal framework,
 prevent the restriction of Ukraine’s sovereignty by means of amending the Constitution and
the law in general, in accordance with the requirements of the aggressor and the external
players,
 reduce political instability,
 prevent the national split associated with amending the Constitution of Ukraine on so-called
“decentralization matters”
 prevent the potential civil conflict caused by amending to the Constitution of Ukraine in the
illegal manner, without an expert debate, public dialogue and proper discussion in the
Parliament of Ukraine,
we demand that the President of Ukraine, having realized his responsibility before the
Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian state:
1. Declare that the implementation term of null and void “Minsk agreements” has expired and
that despite the fact that it was imposed on Ukraine by force and threat of force, the
aggressor country itself has not fulfilled a single provision of it. State that the “Minsk
agreements” do not reflect the true nature of the conflict caused by the Russian aggression
against Ukraine and do not lead to its halt or restoration of peace.
2. Express his commitment to the political and diplomatic resolution of the Russian-Ukrainian
conflict, reserving the right to use all legitimate methods, powers and means, including
military ones, in order to protect the state and restore its sovereignty and territorial integrity
within its internationally recognized borders.
3. Ensure that all conflict-resolution negotiations are limited to the following:
 end of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine
 withdrawal of the Russian Armed Forces from all the occupied territories – the areas of
the Donetsk and Lugansk regions, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of
Sevastopol
 release of all the hostages and political prisoners without any exceptions
 compensation of the losses incurred by Ukraine as a result of the Russian aggression.
In terms of the international law, the goal should be to restore the status quo ante of the
provisions of the Helsinki Final Act of the CSCE (OSCE) regarding the territorial integrity
of sovereign states and inviolability of borders and to not allow Russia destroy the basis of
the international system of protecting human rights and democracy.
Despite the current international disregard of the Budapest memorandum, insisting on its
fulfillment and the use of the mechanisms provided by it, would serve not only the interests
of Ukraine, but also the revival of global confidence in the nuclear non-proliferation system.

3. 4. Initiate a new format of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict settlement that would involve the
US, EU, Russia and other concerned states (foremost, the signatories of the Budapest
Memorandum) and expand the negotiations agenda to the de-occupation of not only certain
areas of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions, but also Crimea, as well as the development of
the international legal guarantees of Ukraine’s security.
5. In accordance with Art. 39 of the UN Charter, initiate an extraordinary meeting of the UN
Security Council to officially recognize the act of aggression of the Russian Federation
against Ukraine. In case of Moscow blocking that decision, initiate the consideration of this
issue by the UN General Assembly.
6. Declare that given the international nature of the conflict, Ukrainian internal political issues
cannot be a subject of negotiations between the warring parties. Amendments to the
Constitution must take place in accordance with the present Constitution and laws of
Ukraine and in the interests of the Ukrainian people as a result of a wide public and expert
discussion and appropriate debate in the Parliament of Ukraine. Ukraine is ready to discuss
the issue of political reform, including Amendments to the Constitution, only with its
European partners in the context of adjusting the national legislation to the requirements of
the EU Association Agreement.
7. Introduce to the Parliament of Ukraine bills on the instant repeal of the laws “On Special
Order of Local Government in Certain Districts in Donetsk and Luhansk regions”,
“Prevention of Prosecution and Punishment of Participants of the Events in the Donetsk and
Lugansk Regions”, “On Creation of the Free Economic Zone “Crimea” and the Peculiarities
of Exercising Economic Activity in the Temporarily Occupied Territory of Ukraine” and the
bills “On the Temporarily Occupied by the Russian Federation Separate Areas of the
Donetsk and Lugansk regions” and “On the Collaborators” and require their immediate
consideration.
8. Ensure legal recognition of the so-called DNR/LNR as irregular armed bands that are
financed, armed and controlled by Russia, and therefore, are a tool of the Russian armed
aggression against Ukraine that falls under the “Definition of aggression” of the UN General
Assembly’s Resolution 3314 (XXIX) of December 14, 1974.
9. Put together a consolidated claim to the aggressor state.
10. Initiate the formation of an international commission to assess the damages caused to
Ukraine by the Russian armed aggression in order to later claim adequate compensation in
the international courts.
Bohdan Yaremenko, Maidan of Foreign Affairs Foundation
Mykhailo Honchar, Center for Global Studies “Strategy XXI”
Oleksiy Melnik, the Razumkov Center
Mykhailo Samus, Center for Army, Conversion and Disarmament Studies
Valentin Badrak, Center for Army, Conversion and Disarmament Studies
Yevgenia Kubakh, Digests and Analytics Ukraine
Vadim Khomakha, Digests and Analytics Ukraine
Olexander Khara, Maidan of Foreign Affairs Foundation

4. Andrii Klymenko, BlackSeaNews, Maidan of Foreign Affairs Foundation
Tetyana Huchakova, BlackSeaNews, Maidan of Foreign Affairs Foundation
Yurii Smelyanski, Institute of Strategic Black Sea Studies, Maidan of Foreign Affairs
Foundation
Oleh Belokolos, Maidan of Foreign Affairs Foundation
Oleksii Kuropiatnyk, Maidan of Foreign Affairs Foundation
Dmytro Novak, Maidan of Foreign Affairs Foundation
Olha Korbut, Maidan of Foreign Affairs Foundation
Tetyana Puchkova, Maidan of Foreign Affairs Foundation
Alisa Kolesnikova, Maidan of Foreign Affairs Foundation