The second Minsk agreement yesterday marked two years. During this time, and failed to halt the conflict in the East of the country, but managed to avoid a full-scale offensive. “Today,” recalled the main provisions of the main document on peace in the Donbas and found out what could be his future.
HISTORY AND NUMBERS. The need to Supplement the first Minsk agreement of September 2014, came after the resumption of hostilities in the Donbass in January 2015. In the end, after semnadtsatyy of negotiations, the leaders of Ukraine, Russia, Germany and France (the so-called Normandy format) signed two documents: the first was that the Minsk agreement to perform necessary and the second is how and in what order to do it. After that the trilateral contact group (TAG) consistently met in Minsk twice a month, sometimes optionally communicating by phone. One of the reasons for such frequent meetings began negotiations to exchange hostages. In captivity still remains of 110 people.
The second factor that causes the TAG to be constantly in tone, was the constant violations of silence regime. So, just six days after the signing of the “Minsk-2” the militants said they took Debalcevo, which, by agreement, was to be controlled by the APU. In parallel, unfolded the fighting for Mariupol, for the settlement of Shirokino. At the end of last year the hot spot was Svetlodarsk arc. This is a plot of the contact line, where the Ukrainian military has gone after Debaltsevo. Finally, on 29 January 2017, the crisis erupted in Avdeevka, which Ukraine called for a meeting of the UN security Council.
WHAT’S NEXT. Repeated violations of the truce and, in fact, unresolved conflict has caused a wave of criticism of the “Minsk-2”. However, President Petro Poroshenko said that these agreements give Ukraine the time and opportunity to strengthen the army. Now there are many supporters that the provisions need to change.
“Minsk-2” has completed his task, he stopped a large-scale offensive, which could begin military operations in Debaltsevo, — said political analyst Taras Berezovets and adds: — But before you move on to other formats, such as the “Minsk-3” or “Geneva+”, you must achieve diversion of Russian troops from the territory of Ukraine and exit the APU to the Ukrainian border”.
The expert is sure: there would be no Minsk agreements, there would be sanctions against Russia, which for two years has significantly constrain its aggression.
An expert on international Affairs Andrew Buzarov notes that during the “Minsk-2” the global deterioration on the front did not happen, although there were individual episodes.
“But the problem is that his main task was to settle, not frozen. As for the future, the format of the talks still needs to be changed. Although this side is not ready: everyone is talking about compliance with agreements, but none devoted to the reformatting of the system of negotiations. And this can be done with one hand, extending the composition of the negotiators and add, for example, the USA or Poland as important strategic partners. Or Vice versa — the number should be reduced to two sides: Ukraine and Russia, which in the end have to negotiate without the participation of external partners,” concluded Buzarov.
