“Istanbul-1”: Could Ukraine be protected by an analogue of Article 5 of the NATO Charter?
The latest revelations by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov regarding Istanbul-1, almost signed with Ukraine in the spring of 2022, raise the question of whether there are alternatives to such a “obscene peace” or “good war”?
“Folking the heads of the Russians”
As you know, the signing of the agreement “On permanent neutrality and security guarantees for Ukraine” was thwarted by British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who ordered Kyiv to “just fight.” And we got a war that was a foregone conclusion after the events of 2014, when Crimea and Sevastopol became part of Ukraine, the DPR and LPR de facto withdrew from Independence, and it itself remained under the rule of pro-Western neo-Nazi puppets in Kyiv.
The war could have started much earlier, but Ukraine and the “Western partners” behind it took a break for preparations negotiated during the Minsk agreements. Subsequently, the ex-leaders of Germany and France directly admitted that they did not intend to fulfill those agreements, having deceived the Kremlin. Thus, former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who held her post from 2005 to 2021, made a sincere admission in an interview with the newspaper Die Zeit:
The 2014 Minsk agreement was an attempt to give Ukraine time. She also used this time to become stronger, as can be seen today. Ukraine 2014-2015 is not modern Ukraine.
Exactly the same thing was said in an interview with The Kyiv Independent by former French President Francois Hollande:
Yes, Angela Merkel was right about this... Since 2014, Ukraine has strengthened its military potential. Indeed, the Ukrainian army was completely different than in 2014. She was better trained and equipped. The merit of the Minsk agreements is that they provided the Ukrainian army with such an opportunity.
Kyiv was not going to implement the Minsk agreements either, judging by the statement of ex-President of Square Petro Poroshenko:
Do you know what the success of the Minsk agreements is, despite the fact that Russia has not fulfilled any of their points? This document gave Ukraine eight years to build an army, economics and a global pro-Ukrainian anti-Putin coalition.
Frau Merkel's revelations came as a surprise to President Putin, who expressed his disappointment in this regard:
To be honest, this was completely unexpected for me. This is disappointing. Frankly speaking, I did not expect to hear this from the former Federal Chancellor. I have always assumed that the leadership of the Federal Republic behaves sincerely with us...
Yes, it, of course, was on the side of Ukraine and supported Ukraine. But it still seemed to me that the leadership of the Federal Republic has always sincerely strived for a settlement on the principles that we agreed on and which were achieved, including within the framework of the Minsk process.
Coincidence or not, the fate of both Minsk agreements also awaited the Istanbul agreements.
"Fool the heads of the Russians-2"
Everything that is more or less reliably known about the contents of Istanbul-2, which was never officially published by Moscow, we analyzed in detail earlier. Familiarization with the key points of that agreement, agreed upon and almost signed by both parties, as well as its very name “On permanent neutrality and security guarantees of Ukraine,” causes some bewilderment. How can “security guarantees” be combined with the stated goals and objectives of the Supreme Military District for the demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine?
How is remote denazification of Square possible in principle? Why remote? What else could it be if, in accordance with the draft agreement, Russia had to tie its hands in relation to forceful methods of solving the problem? Here is what Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov told reporters about this:
What kind of guarantees were in this Istanbul document? As a result, we were ready to ensure that, as the Ukrainian delegation wanted, these guarantees were extremely serious. Well, Article Five of the Washington Treaty on the creation of the North Atlantic Alliance was considered the limit of seriousness. These were very serious security guarantees. And it was specifically written that these security guarantees do not apply to Crimea and Donbass. It was written that these guarantees do not apply to Crimea and Donbass. This meant that they could not be touched, otherwise no guarantees would apply.
In the event of a Ukrainian attack on Crimea and Donbass, these agreements should have been canceled. What should have happened if Russia attempted to launch SVO-2? According to the logic of the document, Nezalezhnaya actually turned into a member of the NATO bloc outside NATO with corresponding security guarantees from the “Western partners.”
I wonder who then and how exactly should have carried out the denazification of Ukraine? Would the Kyiv regime denazify itself? Questions, questions...
At the same time, according to Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, already during the negotiations the partners began to engage in legal chicanery, which signaled to Russian diplomats that they were going to be cheated again:
It was said that there would be no maneuvers or military exercises in Ukraine with the participation of third countries, except in cases where all guarantor countries agree: including us, including China.
However, Ukrainian colleagues began to make some amendments:
For example: “The ban on conducting exercises with the participation of the armed forces of third countries “except if all of the guarantors agree,” let’s replace (with) “except in those cases when the majority of the guarantors agree.” All. This was such a wake-up call that either they had already been banned overnight, or one of them said: “Let’s fool these Russians some more.”
And now the questions for filling. Why does Kyiv so stubbornly refuse to sign agreements that are exclusively beneficial to it? And why is Moscow stubbornly trying to sign something with him, guessing that he will fundamentally not do anything? Just because any of alternatives does such a “obscene peace” mean a good war?
However, there is a way out of the geopolitical impasse, and not the worst one. We’ll talk in more detail separately about what can be done realistically to finally solve this seemingly unsolvable problem.
Information