At the time of writing on Sunday, the ABC was reporting that the destructive civil war raging in East Ukraine since April now seems to be drawing to a close, essentially on Kiev’s terms. It appears that the tense test of wills between Russia and the West generated by the crisis, which briefly last week risked a wider war, has ended in a tacit backdown by Moscow.
The ABC news report carried the following:
Pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine say they are prepared to strike a ceasefire deal with Kiev forces as Russia calls for ‘urgent measures’ to prevent a humanitarian disaster in the region.
There are conflicting reports whether Russia actually tried in recent days to send in an armed ‘humanitarian convoy’ to relieve the beleaguered separatist forces in East Ukraine. Kiev says they did try, but were warned back. Moscow says this is a fairy tale. The truth is probably that US intelligence picked up signs of mobilisation for such a move, and Obama warned Putin it would be regarded by the West as a hostile act.
So ends, in my interpretation of published news, the biggest threat to East-West peace since the Cold War. It ends in devastation and tragedy for the people of East Ukraine.
As my former DFAT colleague (and former Australian Ambassador to Moscow) Cavan Hogue commented on Saturday:
It’s a very complicated situation. Places like Crimea and Odessa and where the troubles are now are inhabited by Russian-speaking people who think of themselves as Russian. So, are we going for self-determination or are we going for territorial integrity?
It seems that territorial integrity has won.
Hogue also suggested that for Australia publicly to insult the Russian Government seemed pointless: what was in it for us to get involved? He wondered how much of this was for domestic purposes? I will answer: almost all of it. The outrage over the M17 shoot down, seemingly by Moscow-armed separatists who mistook it for a Ukrainian airforce plane on a bombing mission against them, and the anti-Moscow sentiments of sizeable numbers of Australian voters, created a fertile field for vote-garnering by a beleaguered Abbott government. Perforce, Labor has to follow suit.
As for the Americans and European Union, they must have been irritated by Abbott’s inept efforts to put himself front and centre of international response to the MH17 disaster. The vainglorious foolishness of the proclaimed armed ADF/AFP mission to seize control of the crash area in order to search for remains and establish accountability would have particularly concerned the Dutch and Malaysians.
As I read Paul McGeough's report for Fairfax Media, heavy-handed Australian tactics in this tragicomedy actually complicated the release by the separatists of the black box flight recorders and the train carrying the remains. In the end, quiet diplomacy by the Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak secured these essential goals.
Neither Abbott and Bishop, nor Australia, emerge with credit from these weeks of parochial and insensitive world grandstanding. As for Bishop’s diplomatic triumph at the UN (on which I wrote on 21 July), much of this would have reflected staff work by a highly competent Australian UN Mission led by Ambassador Gary Quinlan in drafting appropriate resolutions, setting up meetings, and preparing talking points for those meetings.
But to return to the main story of the war, which the Red Cross rightly designated a civil war subject to humanitarian rules of war:
Since April, Ukraine’s President Poroshenko led a forceful but calibrated military campaign against the separatist region, deploying troops, tanks, aircraft and artillery bombardment against towns and villages where civilians lived. The goal was to cause just enough damage to encourage refugee flows, to clear the battlefield.
As a result, the extent of the outgunned rebel-held area steadily shrank to two major cities Donetsk and Lugansk and some surrounding rural areas. The rebels appear no longer to hold a corridor to the nearby Russian border. Approximately 1500 Ukrainians have been killed in the conflict and over 250,000 people forced to flee their homes and farms: some to Russia, some to other parts of Ukraine. Key infrastructure (roads, bridges, power supplies, hospitals) were destroyed and great suffering inflicted on the people of East Ukraine.
When I wrote my last commentary in Eureka Street, on 30 July, my hunch was that Putin would intervene but was waiting for the right moment to do so. He was between a rock and a hard place, but I thought domestic political considerations and I believe his own values, would finally impel him to send in overwhelming Russian forces. In the end, he left it too late.
As Hogue said:
What can Putin do? He can back down and lose face domestically and internationally or he can hit back. He's left in a very difficult situation.
Finally, it seems today, Putin succumbed to American power and steely resolve. Obama, with full backing from Germany and Britain, seems to have persuaded Putin not to launch any form of unilateral humanitarian intervention into East Ukraine.
According to the ABC report, Obama and Angela Merkel agreed on Saturday night Australian time that such a move would be unacceptable, would violate international law, and would provoke additional consequences. David Cameron’s office reported that he and Obama had spoken, had expressed grave concern, and had agreed any humanitarian mission by Russia into Ukraine would be unjustified and illegal. All very strong diplomatic language to Moscow.
Soon afterwards, the prime minister of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic caved in. He said areas in the Ukraine's east where rebels are fighting government troops were lacking food, water and electricity. He said:
We are ready for a ceasefire to prevent the proliferation of a humanitarian disaster in Donbass. We have no humanitarian corridors. There is no supply of medicines... food supplies are nearing their end.
Kiev Government officials said they are ready to agree to a ceasefire but on condition the rebels surrender their arms.
So, this tragic five-month civil war appears to be drawing to a close, essentially on Kiev’s terms. I hope there will soon be some face-saving cooperation announced between Kiev and Moscow that will enable urgent humanitarian assistance to flow in from neighbouring Russia. (No other country seems in any hurry to help the East Ukrainians).
Thus realpolitik triumphs once again. In World War Two, this strategic Donbass industrial region (around Donetsk) was first invaded by the Nazis and then recovered by the Red Army in a bitter campaign. The region was devastated. It was repopulated and rebuilt since 1945, with handsome Soviet-style cities like Donetsk and Lugansk. Now so much human toil has been destroyed again, in a needless war that a modicum of statesmanship and diplomacy could have prevented. These people have again been dealt a raw deal by history.
Much now depends on the quality of Poroshenko’s leadership. Will he reach out in charity and compassion to the defeated people of East Ukraine, or will he be vengeful and triumphant, stirring up more trouble for Europe’s future peace? Surely Europe has had enough of discriminated-against, resentful ethnic minorities lodged unhappily in fragile multicultural nations?
Tony Kevin is a former Australian ambassador to Poland.