RUSSIA DELENDA (4): THE MINSK AGREEMENTS

Following Russia's first military intervention in Ukraine in 2014, the Minsk Protocol was born. It was doomed from its very conception: although the points concerning the ceasefire were indeed implemented, the real issues behind Russia's intervention were never dealt with -- the Donbas region was not happy with the centralized government in Kyiv, and demanded more autonomy within the republic. These innocent demands met deaf ears. Make no mistake: these protests were not encouraged by Russia. As a matter of fact, the Donbas' region longing for more autonomy dates back to the very days of Ukraine's own independence from the USSR. As early as 1993 we find strikes and protests against the central government -- a time when Russia could hardly exert any preassure upon her neighbour.

signataries of the Minsk Agreement in 2015

Most of western media have portrayed the moments previous to Putin's invasion without proper context, thus creating the false idea that Putin is gone either derranged or too ambitious (which, indeed could be true as well). I've donde so far my best to counter-balance this misconception, pointing out historical facts that make the picture of this conflict more complex. This will be my last installment in this series. I'm writing this September 18th 2022. The ukrainian central government seems to be winning some strategic positions in the North, russian morale is lower than ever and the whole invasion plan seems pointless and fated to fail. This was somehow predictable. Funny enough, Putin's invasion has caused precisely the opposite outcome of what he wanted to win out of the conflict. He has delivered the Donbas region into Zelensky's hand, whose army is now fighting, clawing back every inch. This is just another another example of Putin's miscalculations: what was he thinking? But I digress. My point here, as it has been in the previous articles, is to prove (yet again) that the invasion could have been avoided had the core issue behind the Minsk Agreements been respected. As a quick reminder, let me say once again that this war is madness, that I bewail the death and destruction this war is bringing, and that it's precisely on that account that we must endeavour ourselves to understand its context.

So, what was agreed exactly? Minsk I (for its failure caused a sequel, called Misk II) covers both the cease-fire and Donbas' longing for a decentralised government. Points 3, 6, 7, 9 and 12 deal directly with this. Ukraine agreed to a decentralised power regime, and to hold local elections under a specific ukrainian law called "on temporary order of local self-governance in particular districts of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblast". These points were again brought up in Minsk II. Local elections were indeed held in 2014 and 2018, and neither of them were recognised as official, although they were indeed elections. Both Ukraine and Western powers claim that the elections celebrated were a sham. This could indeed be the case, but, was it not within the agreements to hold local elections? Didn't Ukraine agree to that? Why didn't the EU, USA or the UN took part in protecting and supervising the whole process? It was after all ukrainian territory. We will talk about this later, let's ask now: why those regions and not others? What was wrong in those areas? This is when we must deal with the recent history of Donbas.

The region had historically a complex demography, having been inhabited by many different ethnicities (not just ukrainians and russians, but cossacks, turkic peoples like tatars, jews, other slavs like serbians...). By 19th century most of rural areas were inhabited by ukrainians while the big cities and most of the industrial work-force was russian. After the birth of the USSR russification was implemented in the region, reshaping its demography. The region currently in prominently russian in language and ethnicity, and not only that: maps showing results of elections clearly point at this very issue. Eastern Ukraine has indeed a different political opinions. Let's remember that this differences were already present in the earliest elections.

1994 Ukrainian parlamentary election

Just look at the map of the earliest parlamentary election since its independence. Other elections have similar results: there are different mindsets concerning Ukraine itself as an entity, and the International Movement of the Donbass has been claiming the area's russian identity since the 90's, when Putin wasn't even in power.

We could argue that, indeed, had the russification of the region never happened, things would be different now. Russification did happen and USSR did colonize non-russian areas under its power, Kazakhstan being the worst example of them all. I agree. USSR was absolutely wrong in russifying areas that were not russian --yet another example of russian mismanagment and anti-communist behaviour. But we cannot travel back in time now, can we? Now we find ourselves in this situation where tons of people identify as russians rather than ukrainian, what are we going to do with them? Kill them all? Deny them their identity? 

2010 presidential election map (2010! not 2022!)

Are we really going to deny them the freedom of choosing their own future? Well, this is what happened. After Ukraine's independence the region was impoverished, the economy of the region collapsed, already in 1993 coal miners were protesting in the streets acusing the central government in Kyiv of mismanagement. Already in 2004 there was a project of an independent south-east Donbas, which failed, obviously. And again you can argue that the region has been russified, that is backward, that is home of russian separatist, and that Putin is just taking advantage of these people in order to implement his imperialist agenda. And I'd agree with you. I don't think Putin cares about these people, I don't think he cares for any single soldier of his lying dead on the ground. That is not my point. My point is that we could have avoided this war by ensuring that decentralised power happens, we could have avoided this war by maybe celebrating self-determination referendums across the country under international supervision. That should have happened long ago, before even Putin came to power. What excuse could he use then for entering Ukraine --none. There was a self-determination referedum in Scotland (two in recent history, actually, and a third coming), what is so wrong with this idea that we are all so stubbornly against it? The spanish government doesn't want any referendum in Catalonia. The french government doesn't want any referendum in Corsica, what is so wrong with it? I don't mean to say they deserve a referendum, nor that their future will be better after it. But I think anybody should have the freedom to determine whether they want to take part in a structure of power under which they will live for the rest of their lives. Isn't a matter serious enough? We only back separatist when is convenient for us it seems: NATO supported Kosovo's independence --it was alright then, and not now? Albania, Serbia and Kosovo are in a strikingly similar relationship to Russia-Ukraine-Donbas. Kosovo can be independent and can choose its own future, we will allow it, because we don't like serbs, and we don't like serbs because they are friends with Russia. But we cannot allow the same freedom to happen in a region with a very similar history --because Ukraine after 2014 (after Yanukovich stepped out) is our friend, and granting Donbas the same support we gave for Kosovo is bad news for this new friend that happens to be in a great strategic position to attack our enemy. Could you imagine USA allowing an enemy military base in Mexico? Ukrainian army is now trained and ready, highly armed and well equipped. Does anybody think they will return the weapons?

I'm writig now september 24th of 2022. Russian officials are going door to door --asking the people to vote. But this vote now should not happen. Not in the middle of war, not at gunpoint, not now when no one can monitor the process, when no international institution can check it. This vote should have happened years ago. Our past stubbornness has caused the present death. And this goes for everything I've said in these articles: Russia should have joined NATO, USA should not have cornered Russia against its will, and this should not be a chess board. Putin has lost, it's a matter of time. Now we have successfully armed Ukraine to the teeth, trained its army, ukrainified the Donbas. None of this should have ever happened. This war bears witness of our failure, not Putin's. We now celebrate Zelensky, a right-wing politician with vague conservative views and that publicly supports Azerbaijan in its war agains Armenia (he who is suffering himself invasion, supports Azerbaijan's president Aliyev without blinking). Now it's too late for everything. The world keeps spinning aimlessly in the vacuum of space, with no past and no future. Centuries pass by and we are the same barbarous, idiotic, moronic and purposeless fools. We are the same will, the same human with different faces --phoenician, chaldean, roman, european, slavic or tibetan, past or present. We are of the same clay. When this war is over, some other will come, and after those some more will come. Nothing really changes, does it?