To win the war, it is necessary to begin to call her name.
And not just from the rostrum, and in the normative act. The words “war”, “aggression”, “occupation”, “capture the territory” means of manipulation, PR, blackmail or masking turned into legal facts entailing the relevant legal, political and military consequences.
The first careful attempt to do so was undertaken by the Ukrainian authorities in the fourth year of the actual war. And ended with a false start. The national security Council indefinitely postponed consideration of the bill “On peculiarities of the state policy on restoration of state sovereignty of Ukraine on the temporarily occupied territory of Donetsk and Lugansk regions”.
Pessimists claim that the document is buried. Optimists — a review will definitely be back (presumably in autumn), and after necessary modifications, it will be adopted by Parliament.
About the vague future of the project we will discuss below. And yet — about his mysterious past and uncertain present.
Customers and performers
About the appearance of the document, clarifying the legal status uncontrolled territories and military operations in the East of the country, first began in the first half of June. Security Council Secretary Oleksandr Turchynov publicly announced the imminent adoption of the law, involving “the transition to the new format of the protection of the country”. By that time in the bowels of the security Council had already developed a concept of the future law.
Some media then came version: the preparation of the document was a personal initiative of Turchynov and his writing began contrary to the intentions of the President. As proven by the information gathered, version is false. Initiated the drafting of the bill was just Poroshenko. A surprise to the President (as far as can be judged) was not the appearance of the document, and the disclosure of the alleged content of the project.
Why such a document was needed to Pyotr Alekseevich?
The first reason (“derzhavniki”). The existing legal framework does not allow to effectively manage a military operation; does not ensure adequate coordination among various law enforcement agencies involved in the Donbas; does not guarantee the necessary interaction of security forces with local authorities and government (in particular, civil-military administrations); limits the Central government in the proper use of the Armed Forces. Needed a law that would put the unity of command, rigid hierarchy of authority, clear performance discipline and taking into account the interests of the military. If successfully implemented, this approach could Kiev:
— finally, to restore full Ukrainian authorities in the liberated land (in fact, it’s not there, it is present and functioning in fragmented nonsystem);
— to improve the level of security in controlled areas;
— to gain valuable experience of restoring order, which can be used after the de-occupation of uncontrolled territories (assuming that anyone really thinks about the imminent restoration of territorial integrity).
On the question of why these issues upstairs bothered the informants answered the same: “Better late than never”.
To version may be skeptical, but the right to life, she certainly has.
The second reason (“image”). Peter is very sensitive to various opinion polls. A number of studies of public opinion indicates that the population wants from the government greater certainty in relation to the war and ORDO. In the Parliament registered draft laws that perpetuate the uncontrolled territories legal status of the occupied. Perhaps Poroshenko sought to seize the initiative (development of a presidential project for a guaranteed hindered the consideration of the Deputy), wanted to please the Patriotic part of the population and create another PR excuse. The development of the law could serve not so much by the implementation of the strategic plan, many another reason for tactical self-promotion. That newsmaker was not he, but Turchinov, the guarantor’s pretty annoyed. No wonder the head of state hastened to declare that the project (which is quickly dubbed “turchinovsky”) was developed according to his personal instructions.
What a PR initiative it was intercepted, it could cool the interest of the President to the document. Especially, if, in fact, was more interested in the process (more advertising support), not the end result.
The third reason (“progamatically”). The adoption of the law would mean the emergence of a new power vertical, closed directly to the President. The head of state so formally in control of what is happening in the Donbas. But he could be interested in the emergence of new, more rigid control system, closed on one person, they are appointed by and report directly to the President, subordinate. According to the working plan, all authority in the Donbas — military and civilian — were assigned to created an Operational headquarters, whose head would be appointed by the President on recommendation of the chief of staff.
Currently, the head of the Antiterrorist center, which is responsible for ATO, not always decree for the local government, the Ministry of interior or, say, guards. New legal reality established more rigid rules of subordination, which could not be interested, for example, the Minister Avakov and the Governor Zhebrivsky (which, according to available information, did not approve of the appearance of the law). But these rules just had to meet the interests of Poroshenko, who, like every President, striving to control everything.
Minus of this model of management (for President) is that the head of state had to take full responsibility for everything that happens in the Donbas. The emergence of the Operational headquarters complicated the process of finding “scapegoats.” Perhaps Poroshenko is confusing. And under the influence, including these doubts, he did not give the project the green light.
The fourth reason (“foreign”). The logic of the people claiming this version, the project was interested not as a regulatory instrument and as an instrument of influence for “our Western partners”. Threatening to infuse the word “occupation”, “aggression”, “occupation of territories” full legal sense (from what Washington, Berlin and Paris to keep Kiev) Poroshenko could stimulate world leaders to more actively put pressure on Russia. To get her to finally go to a full-scale exchange of prisoners/hostages and/or long to ensure a full ceasefire. Bankova needs new successes.
Likely to undertake the development of the bill, giving new legal status uncontrolled territories and the military operations in the East prompted the President is not one specific reason, and the complex reasons disclosed above.
Own motives were and curator of the process Oleksandr Turchynov. He probably needed a bright reason to remind myself. New rules of the game could theoretically allow it to more actively influence what is happening in the Donbas, at least informally. The sympathetic Alexander V. saying that he’s more Peter is interested in arranging events at the front/in the front zone, and a tightening of relations with Russia. Legal recognition of the fact of aggression and occupation, of course, Moscow is not pleased.
The “source” and “Apocrypha”
Reportedly, Turchynov hoped that on Monday, July 10, the draft law “On peculiarities…” will be sanctified by the decision of the security Council, on Tuesday will go to Parliament as a priority and on Thursday is passed by Parliament. Why plans went awry, we will try to explain below.
And yet the alleged fact of the document. After it was decided to defer consideration of the document, the text appeared in the press. The version of the bill, released Thursday on the website of “Gromadsky”, the same as the one the day before was able to see me. Three sources (of the UN security Council, the Cabinet and Parliament) argued that it is this final option that on Friday, July 7, was sent to all permanent members of the security Council. Three other source (from the AP and again the government and Parliament), that “illuminated” the text is just one of the options, and not the last.
I can assume that the published version was version offered Turchinov. And it has not caused the approval of Poroshenko.
Even if this text is not “canonical”, it allows you to understand the logic of the process and to predict the causes of the dissatisfaction of some participants.
So, the project commits “criminal seizure of the Russian Federation of the territory of Ukraine”; notes that “the use of Russian Federation armed force against Ukraine (…) is the fact of armed aggression”, “one of the consequences of the armed aggression of Russian Federation against Ukraine was a temporary occupation of the territory of Ukraine”. With reference to the UN General Assembly resolution “Definition of aggression”, the Hague (1907) and the Geneva (1949) conventions. According to our information, a number of lawyers who were involved in the examination of the document was opposed to such harsh language, arguing that international organizations refused to recognize the occupation, preferring a “hybrid” term “effective control”. However, the authors led by Turchynov insisted on his innocence.
The text clearly indicates that the state of Ukraine is not responsible for the illegal actions of the aggressor state on the territory ORDO.
According to the project, the boundaries of the occupied territories are determined by the performance of the General staff of the defence Ministry, which is responsible for their updating. In the occupied territories, establishes a special legal regime for crossing borders, the implementation and enforcement of rights and freedoms. The management of forces and means necessary to ensure security and defense in the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts carried out by the joint operational headquarters. All who are involved in measures to ensure security and defense, submit to the chief of joint operational headquarters. Chief of staff (in consultation with the SBU) determines the mode on the frontline, the order of movement through it of persons and goods. For a staff responsibility, including the management of the activities of the military-civil and military administrations (in the case of their creation). The chief of the joint operational staff appointed by the President on the recommendation of the head of the General staff.
The head of state assigned the right to use in the Donbass APU and other military formations, as well as the imposition of martial law.
This is a key position 11 articles of the draft. “Behind the scenes” was final position, which the initiators of the “illumination” of the text in the media have decided to classify. They contain the thesis of the inviolability of the policy of Ukraine on the restoration of sovereignty over Crimea. As well as the list of changes that should be made in a number of laws, particularly in laws on APU on military-civil administrations and the legal regime of martial law.
As far as we know, security Council Secretary encouraged the President to approve this version of the bill. And also convinced of the need to introduce on the territory of Donetsk and Lugansk regions martial law. The President, according to our sources, was strongly against this. And on Monday, July 10, put on “stop” and the project itself.
Did this mean the possible adoption of this law, the termination of the ATU? Yes and no. The ATO can be completed by the head of ATC General Malikov. And could continue, but as a local part of a larger, institutionalized military operation. Which, by the way, was never called the war…
Cause and effect
Partly, the reasons that led the President to waive the legitimization of the bill, we stayed above. But there were others. The source in AP claims that Poroshenko does not believe in the success of the passage of the document through Parliament now, in the context of the history of the withdrawal of immunity and new tensions between the President’s faction and the “people’s front”. Hardly this circumstance was decisive, but to consider it could.
According to the source in Cabinet of Ministers, the lawyers the Bank and the President personally, there were many comments to the text. Doubts about the reference to “aggression” and “occupation” had not all agreed as to the value in the document is mention of the Crimea. Arguing about where exactly (in the “body” of the document or in the final provisions) and how to mention the notorious Minsk process. What is the link to it mandatory — was the initial requirement to the developers. There were comments to the list and the nature of changing laws. Some experts insisted that the final provisions should provide for a more active role of agencies Blackie and Reva that it was about reintegration and not only on de-occupation. Was claim even to the title.
But the main reason, in my opinion, is obvious. The two of them. Subjective: Poroshenko is not yet ripe for such a radical step. Objective: the position of “our Western partners”. Information about their involvement in the process is sketchy.
Let’s try to summarize the information. As far as we know, the decision to cancel the consideration of the question was preceded by two “plum”. Supposedly one of the intermediate versions of the document came to Moscow, and the latest version became available to the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine. The reaction of Marie Yovanovitch, as far as we can judge, was sharply negative. And their views to the state Department, she was told. About the reaction of the Kremlin can only guess, but it’s easy to assume that Putin has used his influence on Western leaders to prevent the adoption of such a document.
According to information from diplomatic sources, on the preparation of the bill and its key provisions, Kiev and planning informed the Berlin and Paris. And there advised us not to hurry, promising instead to increase the pressure on Putin. Informants in the Ministry of foreign Affairs claim that Merkel and especially the Makron, I think that I will be able to make Russia certain concessions, in particular, observance of the cease-fire, large-scale exchange of prisoners/hostages, denial of the “passports” of the “DNR” and “LNR” and return the “depressed” enterprises in ORDA under the jurisdiction of Kiev. In exchange from Kiev want the lifting of the economic blockade, the refusal to impose additional restrictions imposed on the Russians crossing the Ukrainian border, as well as the cessation of active actions to establish control of the APU on the “gray zone”. It looks unrealistic, but in Kiev there are people who believe in such agreements.
According to sources from the AP, in the course of negotiations between Poroshenko and Tillerson, the Ukrainian President briefed him on the preparation of the bill. However, the source of such information, Ministry of foreign Affairs strongly denies. Two sources in the Parliament argue that the draft document was introduced to newly promoted, the US special envoy for Ukrainian Affairs Kurt Walker. In any case, the United States advised Poroshenko to boost the adoption of the law can cause obvious irritation of the Kremlin.
As far as we know, at the security Council meeting, its head, Petro Poroshenko, the need for further consultation with the West called the reason why the draft law amending the legal status of uncontrolled territories and the mode of conducting military operations in the East of Ukraine, should be postponed.
Sources in the foreign Ministry claim that the head of state connects special hopes with Kurt Walker. On Bankova hope that Walker will take a tougher stance than its predecessor, Victoria nulland, that it will be less conformist in relation to the initiatives Surkov, and that he is able to find pain points, forcing Moscow to make big concessions in the course of implementation of the Minsk process. It is known that Walker intends to soon visit Moscow to clarify the negotiating position of the Russians in the Minsk process and in the next two months to formulate a package of specific proposals that could bring the negotiations out of the impasse.
It is expected that a new impetus to the unfreezing of the negotiation process must give the telephone conference of the leaders of the Normandy Quartet, previously scheduled for July 24.
A number of sources in the presidential Administration and the government are convinced that, regardless of the outcome of the ongoing diplomatic efforts of Kiev to the end of the year will have to take the document to update legal status and regime ORDA military operation. However, it is expected that the document will be subject to substantial revision subject to the wishes of Washington, Berlin, Paris and (possibly) of Moscow.
At the same time, sources in the national security Council and the Parliament believe that the President missed a real chance to pass this bill through the Parliament. More precisely, to hold the actual Ukrainian version of the law, not a compromise. Do not slice imposed from the outside of the road map.
As is often the case, to intensify or to finally bury the process can either a sharp military tensions, a new opinion poll, the results of which will be on the table candidate for a second term.
