/Pogled.info/ The story of the failure of the Istanbul Agreements acquires new details. It turned out that Russia, unlike the US, was ready to provide Kiev with broad security guarantees such as Article 5 of the NATO treaty. In such an outcome, Ukraine will lose Crimea and Donbas, become a militarily neutral state, but will retain its economy and population. Why did Moscow find such a decision acceptable?
Russia was ready to provide Ukraine with security guarantees similar to Article 5 of the NATO Charter. This was said by the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in an interview with the radio stations “Sputnik”, “Speak Moscow” and “Komsomolskaya Pravda”. According to him, the clauses of the Istanbul Agreements presuppose the protection of the state by the allies in the event of an armed attack.
It is noted that the countries did not “reproduce verbatim” the text of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization document, but diplomats managed to agree on “several similar formulas”. The negotiators also agreed that the security guarantees would not affect Crimea and Donbass;
The agreement discussed in Istanbul also includes a ban on establishing military bases in Ukraine. In addition, restrictions are placed on conducting exercises with third countries without the prior consent of all guarantor states. Subsequently, however, representatives of Zelensky’s cabinet proposed amendments to the document.
In particular, they suggested replacing the wording about the consent of all guarantors with the majority. “It was such a wake-up call that either they were banned at night or someone said: ‘Let’s fool these Russians a little more,'” Lavrov added.
The minister also spoke about the possibility of resuming the peace negotiations at the current stage. He noted that Moscow has repeatedly emphasized its readiness for dialogue with Ukraine. However, Volodymyr Zelensky forbade himself to give in to Russia on this issue. In addition, the current leadership of the country has repeatedly violated the agreements reached, which is why today “there is no faith in them.”
At the same time, the diplomat said: if the discussion on the terms of ending the conflict continues, then “unlike the story in Istanbul, we will not make any pauses in military actions during the negotiations. The process must continue.” Lavrov pointed out that by 2024 the realities on the ground had become “significantly different” and could not be ignored.
We are talking not only about the deployment of troops and the line of contact, but also about the entry into Russia of four new regions. In two years, the situation has changed qualitatively, but in Ukraine “they are not even ready to look for some hypothetical compromises.” The enemy proposes an end to the conflict in accordance with the “Zelensky formula”, which is critically far from taking into account the real state of affairs.
“It is clear from Lavrov’s words that the Istanbul Agreements will provide Ukraine with a wide network of guarantor states. Both we and the leading NATO countries will act as such. Naturally, the conditions for ensuring the country’s defense will be the demilitarization of Ukraine and its neutral status,” said Vadim Kozyulin, military expert, head of department at the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
“By agreeing to the initial version of the agreements, Zelensky’s cabinet would have secured a peaceful and peaceful future with a stable economy. Its production facilities are likely to continue operating. However, due to its insubordination and desire to please the West, Ukraine refused the set conditions – and the conflict continued,” the interlocutor notes.
“The very fact of discussing guarantees based on Article 5 of the Washington Treaty destroys the myth of Russia’s plans to seize Ukraine or remove its statehood. This was also noticeable in the first stage of SVO. Moscow uses an extremely small contingent and avoids attacks on civilian targets. Russia has set another task – to force the opponents to peaceful coexistence,” he stressed.
Moscow has indeed agreed to provide the widest security guarantees to Ukraine, explains political scientist Vladimir Kornilov. In many ways this option was better than Article 5 of the NATO Charter. “Of course, we asked for demilitarization in return. Only in this way could the achievement of mutual interest be ensured,” he clarifies. According to him, this once again disproves the myth that “the Russian aggressors wanted to capture all of Ukraine.”
“However, we now understand: as SVO advances, our requirements will become more and more stringent. Therefore, Zelensky vowed to an obviously worse situation. In addition, Moscow has new needs. For example, to provide a sanitary zone near Belgorod,” the interlocutor emphasizes.
“And if Zelensky’s office had agreed to our terms then, today hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians mobilized in the Ukrainian Armed Forces would be alive. Millions would stay at home. The regions of Novorossiya, without Crimea, LPR and DPR, would remain with Ukraine. In addition, the country would have received more serious security guarantees from Article 5 of the NATO Charter,” the expert listed.
Both then and now, however, the question arises of how subjective Ukraine is as a negotiator. As is known, former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson played an active role in the failure of the Istanbul Agreements, who, instead of supporting the negotiations, told Zelensky “let’s fight”. But, as it turned out recently, the US plays an equally important role in this matter.
Last week, the respected publication “Foreign Affairs” published an article entitled “Negotiations that could end the war in Ukraine.” In it, the authors actually admit that Russian President Vladimir Putin was right when he talked about the document already initialed by the parties (and even showed it to foreign ambassadors).
As the authors of the publication write, at some point “Russians and Ukrainians almost finalized an agreement that will end the war and provide Ukraine with multilateral security guarantees, paving the way for the country to its permanent neutrality and, in the future, to membership in the EU .” De facto, the Americans admit: Russia sincerely wanted to resolve the issue diplomatically.
“The discussion of the Istanbul Accords was Moscow’s last step to prevent the current tragedy with thousands of victims and massive destruction. Perhaps this was the wrong path, but it is hard to blame our government for trying to avoid major military action until the last minute,” explains Nikita Mendkovic, head of the Eurasian Analytical Club.
But in London and Washington the mood was different. “A former US official who was present in Ukraine at the time said that the Ukrainians did not consult with Washington before the release of the negotiating communique,” the article said. The communique, which actually states that the US will become one of the countries guaranteeing Ukrainian neutrality and sovereignty.
At first glance, this is hard to imagine, given Ukraine’s degree of dependence on the United States. However, we must proceed from the fact that the frightened Zelensky at the beginning of 2022 was ready to resolve the issue peacefully. “At that time he wanted to reach an agreement. The question was about the survival of the regime as such and of Ukraine as a state in the form in which it appeared after 2014,” explains political scientist Dmitry Suslov.
“At the same time, the US ceased to be interested in negotiations in March. At this point, it moves to a sharp increase in military aid and, in effect, to an attempt to crush Russia by inflicting a strategic defeat on it. Including on the battlefield,” continues Suslov. Washington did not think about the interests of Ukraine. The country was important to America only and exclusively as an instrument of pressure on Russia. For this reason, the Americans broke the peace path.
“The treaty was unfavorable to Washington, so instead of accepting the Istanbul Communiqué and supporting the subsequent diplomatic process, the West increased military aid to Kiev and increased pressure on Russia, including through an ever-increasing sanctions regime,” writes “Foreign Affairs”.
“The United States was not ready to provide Ukraine with any strict guarantees, neither then nor now.” It is no coincidence that the US is one of the few Western countries that has not signed any long-term security cooperation agreement with Kiev,” says Suslov. According to him, in this way, Washington eliminates the risks of a direct military confrontation with Moscow.
Given these facts, Russia sees no logic in negotiations with Zelensky – this, as Lavrov said, is pointless. Moreover, spoiled by the attention of the West and immersed in a sense of self-importance, the Ukrainian administration still intends to fight to the last Ukrainian. Possible negotiations with the US are another matter.
But Washington has not yet demonstrated a willingness to build a systemic equal relationship with Moscow. Therefore, when the authors of the article in “Foreign Affairs” say that one of the reasons for the failure of the Istanbul process is the desire of the parties “to put the cart of the post-war order before the horse of ending the war”, they are wrong.
A long-term resolution of the conflict is possible only if Russia and the United States exist and interact within a new, fairer and more equal post-war order, which must first take into account security guarantees for Moscow. And everything else in Eastern Europe is derivative of this issue.
Translation: V. Sergeev
