What’s to be done with the Donbas?
There are signs that opinions are hardening in top Ukrainian political circles over the question of the future of the occupied territories in eastern Ukraine, with the former leader of the pro-presidential Bloc of Petro Poroshenko party, Yuriy Lutsenko, in early June calling for a full blockade. This hard-line scenario would allow only humanitarian assistance to cross the front lines under the auspices of international organizations, and would strictly monitor the movement of people coming to and from the occupied territories.
With the issue of the future of the occupied territories now a hot topic in public debate, the Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation, a pro-European Kyiv-based think tank, on July 7 published a study exploring four scenarios for dealing with the occupied Donbas, comparing them on the basis of four criteria: domestic policy, foreign policy, economic issues, and human rights.
In the first scenario, the policy center highlighted the economic and political benefits of a full blockade. Cutting off the occupied parts of easternmost Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts completely would lead to a reduction in public spending of between 6.5percent and 11 percent, reorienting the national economy to the West and making it more competitive. The Kremlin-backed separatists would have to bear their own administration costs, leading to a worsening of the economic situation, and thus a drop in the support they may have from the population of the areas they control. Freezing the conflict in its current borders would also improve the security situation in other parts of the country.
On the downside, this could fuel tensions on both sides. Ukraine’s Western partners, who are continuing to seek a diplomatic solution to the conflict, may not support such a move by the Ukrainian government, while aggressively cutting off ties could mean the conflict escalates towards more violence. Such a blockade could also encourage smuggling across the front line, and would effectively mean Kyiv abandoning part of the Ukrainian population.
The think tank’s second scenario sees people being allowed to cross the front under simplified controls, and let them receive cash payments. Although similar in effect to a total blockade, this solution would however reduce tensions in the occupied areas. The state would continue to serve its citizens, who could maintain personal contacts with residents from other regions.
However, the research organization warns that this may lead to a rise in the culture of dependency in the occupied territories, and foster resentment among the rest of the population over their perceived special treatment. But the main threat is that the central government would have no control over the movements of funds, which could be used by the Kremlin-backed separatists.
The government could beeven more selective in its isolation of the occupied territories under the think tank’s third scenario, where Kyiv would develop functional and administrative ties with the occupied territories by supporting the work oflocal companies under certain conditions.
This solution could reduce fighting through the development of economic ties. As a consequence, relations between the central government and the Kremlin-backed separatists would be more business oriented, giving more security to the population in the occupied areas.
Conversely, this could beseen as legitimizing the leaders of the self-proclaimed breakaway regions in Luhansk and Donetsk, and the effective federalization of the country. Ukraine would also have to bear the cost of such support, which could result in the increase of the cost of living and encourage corruption. Eventually, this would make the position of the separatists more secure and benefit Moscow. And as the conflict dies down, Ukraine’s Western allies may start offering less support.
The last scenario would see the soft reintegration of the occupied territories into Ukraine. The central authorities would cooperate with the leaders of the separatists, agreeing on local elections and specific rights for autonomous regions. This solution would protect the rights of Ukrainian citizens living in the occupied territories, and would be a symbolic win for Ukraine’s Western allies, who still support the implementation of the moribund Minsk peace agreements. The last truce, signed in February by Ukraine, Russia, France and Germany, included provisions for the occupied territories to be reintegrated into Ukraine.
But the cost of such asolution would be high for Ukraine, not only economically and financially, but also in terms of symbolism. With the conflict no longer perceived as an international one, Ukraine’s supporters could start to drift away, abandoning their sanctions on Russia. The government would also lose political and popular support by making concessions to the separatists, who in contrast would be legitimized and strengthened. As a consequence, this could encourage Russia to continue to pursue its hybrid war against Ukraine by creating separatist conflicts in other regions.
Democratic Initiatives says the latter solution is unlikely to come about, as it requires the consent of Russia and its subordinate units in Ukraine. Moreover, the separatist leaders would have to comply with some democratic standards, which is very unlikely in the short term.
The policy center also couldn’t find a perfect solution in regards to improving the human rights situation – especially for those who are stuck in the occupied territories. Furthermore, all of the scenarios imply a lot of costs for few benefits,reducing the options for an already cash-starved government.
Kyiv Post staff writer Yves Souben canbe reached at [email protected].
