Without the Minsk Agreements. Does the USA have three options for Donbass?

The completely fruitless visit of the Ukrainian president to Washington simply could not but cause a stream of interpretations in Kiev, the purpose of which is to give the gestures of Vladimir Zelensky, made by him in the White House, at least some sense. It is not surprising that much of this kind of fabrication is devoted to one of the most painful problems for Kiev - the civil war in the East of the country and the real prospects for its completion.

The only format of this process recognized today at the international level, spelled out in the "Minsk Agreements", categorically does not suit the Ukrainian side, as its representatives have already stated at various levels on several occasions. And now, finally, after the long-awaited summit in the Oval Office, from the camp of opponents of the “capitulatory” and “treacherous” decisions signed in due time in the Belarusian capital, enthusiastic voices and victorious cries sounded - they say, now all these promises can be safely thrown into a landfill stories". A new era is coming! What kind of changes are these that, if you believe the "patriots" are coming for Donbass, what can be the role of the United States in them, and what should Russia do about it?

"Off the hook"

It was with such a loud statement that immediately after Zelensky's Washington voyage, not just anyone, but the adviser of the Ukrainian delegation to the Minsk Trilateral Contact Group (TCG) Aleksey Arestovich, who is also an adviser to the head of the presidential office, was noted. At the same time, he did not fail to emphasize that his words are a response to the speech of the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry Sergei Lavrov, made back in April this year. Then, I remember, the head of our diplomatic department spoke very impartially about both the comic "leader of the nation" and about all the representatives of the "non-foreign" involved in the negotiations on Donbass, who, in their attempts to "turn over" the previously reached agreements, "wriggle" so intensively, that "letting them off the hook" should never be.

Obviously, this fishing comparison hurt Arestovich's tender soul so much that now he declares with the greatest triumph: “But there is no longer any“ hook ”! We got off it! And thus "made a breakthrough achievement", and nothing less. So so, Mr. Lavrov, and understand! " Well, the comparison with worms and other, even less appetizing animals used as bait for fish is certainly insulting. Even if it is well deserved. And the answer, one might say, is timely - and half a year has not passed. Well, if we ignore these emotional moments, which are particulars, then we will get a completely obvious conclusion: Kiev no longer intends to comply with the Minsk agreements, even for appearance. Why did it happen? Where does such impudence come from - after all, Moscow has repeatedly stated that there is no alternative to them and cannot be? It is clear that the answer is to be found in Washington.

Most likely, it consists in the fact that no "Minsk" appears at all in the final US-Ukrainian memorandum adopted and announced after the meeting of the two presidents. As if these agreements had never been concluded at all. All the blame for the civil war going on in the east of Ukraine is quite traditionally attributed to Russia, from which it seems automatically follows that the demand from it and the end of this conflict also depends exclusively on Moscow. Kiev, as the notorious wife of Caesar, is beyond suspicion, he does not bear responsibility for absolutely nothing, and no demands are put forward against him a priori. The United States and Ukraine are saying something about their "commitment to achieving a lasting peace", but under this sauce it all looks like a declaration of intent to put pressure on Moscow as much as possible so that it will provide this very peace.

Without a doubt, it was this interpretation, set out in the official communique, that prompted Arestovich to attack Sergei Lavrov. Like, we now have a "roof" from Washington and all your "Minsk" and "Normandies" to us now to the well-known lighting device. We will do it as we want! However, it cannot be ruled out that such self-confidence is fueled by some other points discussed by Biden and Zelensky behind closed doors and to the general public that have not yet been made public for one reason or another. The question is, what are these moments? This topic is currently being widely discussed in the expert environment, and the absolute majority of the participants in the discussion come to the conclusion that there are not so many options here, and all of them can be reduced to three main ones, which we will consider below in order of their probability.

"Some format" or none at all?

The American edition of the National Interest, which deigned to pay a little attention to the visit of the Ukrainian leader to the country, called his statements made after the meeting with the head of the White House regarding the “Minsk agreements” as “mysterious”. This is specifically about Zelensky's answer to the question of what kind of alternative he sees as an alternative to the current negotiation process? On this occasion, the comedian gave out literally: "Some format ..." Sounds, in my opinion, not at all "mysterious", but frankly foolish. But this is a matter of taste. In any case, this testifies to the complete lack of a clear understanding of the “head of state” on the issue of what can replace both “Minsk” and “Normandy”. One thing is clear - in his own words, Kiev sees a "renewed process" exclusively with the participation of not just the United States, but Mr. Biden personally. Zelensky clarified that he "offered Washington representation at the presidential level." In the USA, of course, such a "flattering" offer was simply ignored. As the Ukrainian leader says, “they will think” there. Well, here we are, in fact, moving on to the options for the American side.

The first, the simplest, is to try to enter the already existing (though, recently, for the most part, purely declaratively) "Normandy format" and try to reshape it "for yourself." At first glance, it is easy, but in practice it is extremely unlikely. First of all, three of the four states participating in the "Normandy" declare their absolute adherence to "Minsk" and its lack of alternatives. The USA is in no way satisfied with this. And will they want to see them in the "four", turning it either into a "five", or even into a courtyard? There, you see, the British and the Canadians will "catch up", but who called them to solve a purely European problem?

First of all, Moscow will not be delighted with such a prospect, and even there they will find opportunities to explain to Berlin and Paris the futility of such an "expansion". No, even though Washington has declared its "adherence to the Normandy format," however, it is unlikely that they will begin to arrange new problems with the "European partners" by unceremoniously sticking into it. Therefore, we will consider the second option - the creation of a completely new negotiating platform with the participation of players that are most beneficial to Kiev and Washington. Poland, representatives of the same Baltic states and other similar “chosen friends of Russia”. In such a "warm company" (to which, no doubt, representatives of the DPR and LPR will not be allowed to shoot a cannon), it will be possible, perhaps, to push through absolutely any decisions dictated by the State Department and the White House. But the Kremlin will by no means agree to such a "Russophobic get-together" - for more than understandable reasons. In the absence of Russian representatives, the whole action will turn into another "Crimean platform" - that is, an empty talking shop with absolutely zero status and the same prospects.

It should be noted that such an alignment would most certainly suit Ukraine most of all - after all, under its cover one could try to carry out the long-awaited "de-occupation", that is, an attempt to seize Donbass by "force". The trouble (for Kiev) is that in this case, Zelensky with all his linguistic advisers will have to deal not with Lavrov, but with Shoigu and the department he heads, which was extremely convincingly demonstrated as recently as this spring. This will not suit Washington either - of course, they do not want to fight the Russians there, but to survive another Afghanistan, watching the defeat of the "allies" ... The American reputation will definitely not stand that.

Consequently, the White House has a third option "up its sleeve" - ​​since "Minsk" is not recognized there, and they do not want to arrange the Third World War. Some of the overly optimistic analysts in this regard admit seditious thoughts that the Americans intend to force Zelensky and the company to take real action to end the war against Donbass. For example, in order to make Moscow such a "tsarist gift" to win it over to its side before the decisive round of confrontation with Beijing. Alas and ah! This version is completely unviable. First, in this case, Washington would just talk about the unconditional implementation of "Minsk", and not ignore it as such. Secondly, it is unlikely that in the local administration there are naive subjects so naive as to believe in the Kremlin's ability to "exchange" relations with China for "bonuses" received according to a similar, extremely dubious scheme. Again, George Kent, who oversees the "non-cash" in the State Department, not so long ago declared that his department had no intentions to appoint anybody at all as a "special representative for the Donbass." Consequently, the United States intends to distance itself and abstract from this issue as much as possible.

In reality, this can only mean that Washington is quite satisfied with the current situation: a relatively "frozen" armed conflict in the east of Ukraine, which at any moment can be inflated or "suppressed" by using its levers of influence on Kiev, the number of which will soon, to all appearances, it will increase significantly, and in pursuit of geopolitical goals that are relevant for this or that moment. Among them, first of all, is the blackmail of both Russia and its own "transatlantic partners". As long as the United States is actively "assimilating" the remnants of "non-leveraged" in the economic sense, the escalation of hostilities can hardly be expected. In the future, anything is possible. One thing is clear - further appeal to Ukraine, demanding that it follow both the spirit and the letter of "Minsk" is completely useless. Russia will undoubtedly continue to do this in order to "save face", but if it is not indifferent to the fate of Donbass, it should be decided without any reference to the agreements, which should now be considered completely buried.