Minsk-2 is a crushing defeat of the USA

Process of implementation of the Minsk agreements reached by «Norman Quartet» means a total failure of the USA actions on the Ukrainian direction. The famous Kiev political scientist and the journalist Vladimir Skachko answers the questions of the Internet portal «The world and we».
— In your opinion, who was more benefited from signing of the Minsk Agreement — Russia or the West?
By and large, it is difficult to call the document signed in Minsk the full agreement as there is no neither responsible, nor the mechanism of its performance. It is rather starry-eyed protocol on intentions the purpose of which is the peace achievement in Donbass. And all who is interested in this peace benefited from it. It is both Ukraine, Donbass, Russia and Europe.
The only party which didn’t benefit from it and lost on all counts is the USA. And it lost even worse than in Vietnam in 1974 because there is nothing to make the best of a bad bargain. The USA as the only beneficiary and depositary from war in Donbass, lost on all counts. And all others had phantasm of a hope for the peace.
Also it is that case when the protocol on intentions is extremely valuable because they are directed on the peace. But, naturally, it is far to the peace. Military operations were conducted meanly even then when presidents and the chancellor strained in improbable efforts for signing, clearing up of separate definitions.
And at this time the Ukrainian army which isn’t controlled by anybody but only by war forces, tried to grab something, to be rehabilitated on fronts. It is the attack to Debaltsevo and provocations near Mariupol. It is very mean and cynical calculation that militiamen who need the peace, won’t hit from all trunks.
Unfortunately, this protocol on intentions can be broken up and burnt down at any time in war fire. The Ukrainian chasteners can make such that it will bring all good efforts to naught. But it is necessary to hope that all signed and agreed on this peace protocol with absolutely serious intentions.
— Many Russian patriots were indignant as DNR, LNR and Novorossiya weren’t specified in the final document and even said it is some treachery. How can you comment on this fact?
Personally I agree with patriots of orthodox sense and Novorossiya, DNR and LNR supporters in many respects. But I understand that policy is the art of possible. At present probably it is impossible to achieve something more without war escalation, without threat of development of the conflict in Donbass in the Third World War with retraction Russia and the USA in it. And I am sure that implementation of all these provisions and even the document lead to that de jure DNR and LNR aren’t recognized, but de facto they are already the party of negotiations.
The bright example is the line of heavy machinery deviation. In this case the offer of DNR and LNR passed— Ukraine takes away it from the current line which was formed as a result of the last attack of militiamen army and militiamen take away the troops from the line designated by the protocol and the memorandum of September of the last year. If there are no such subjects as DNR and LNR why their offers are accepted?
And these offers are not only accepted, but also do well to them. Troops' deviation in such regime means the demilitarized zone becomes widely, therefore, LNR and DNR achieve elementary success. They do safe the cities for a huge number of arms. Width of this zone at 50−70 km actually forces Ukraine to shoot at Donbass only by rockets. And the use of rockets against own population is the war crime. Use of missile, cassette armament is regulated by the international legislation and qualified as war crime against own people.
Of course, Ukraine can do it, but there are people in it who can qualify the actions not as they want and Maidan demanded, but as it is demanded by the international legislation and the international standards which Ukraine ratified too. And the court in the Hague can quite become «Nuremberg Tribunal» for Donbass.
— What points of the Minsk arrangements are the most realistic for execution in your opinion?
All points are realistic there if to recognize that all want the peace. If to assume someone doesn’t want it, then all of them are impracticable especially that one which concern a direct site of battle field.
By and large, closing of border in the east of Ukraine isn’t realistic if the border in the West isn’t closed. Because it means that militiamen of Donbass will lose the help and the help from the West to Ukraine will go by a continuous stream. At once it creates a distortion of forces, violation of fragile balance on the basis of which this agreement became possible.
The fact of troops' deviation is very positive because it expands the demilitarized zone. But if one of the parties breaks it, naturally, another will break because nobody want to remain unarmed in front of tanks and guns of the enemy. The same concerns the constitutional reform which has to provide the special status to Donbass.
If to assume that it needs to be done, it will be done — to find the necessary definitions, fraudulently to look for compromises between party of war and party of peace in the Ukrainian management, not to insist on federation and confederation, but to be limited to softer definitions.
But the political will is necessary for this purpose. And the main lack of these documents is that there are neither mechanisms nor responsible. Observation function is taught a good lesson by OSCE. But it is the organization which fixes and establishes and even control divisions aren’t created under its aegis.
Also it is so possible to take any point — if there is an intention to carry out, it is feasible. If one party doesn’t want, another will reciprocate. The mistrust degree between Ukraine and DNR, LNR is that anybody trusts nobody. Not for nothing the leader of DNR Zakharchenko told that if these arrangements will be violated, we won’t sign any memorandums more. It is possible to call this statement pathos, but actually it is very correct. Thus DNR and LNR do everything to have opportunity to expand the military actions. The mobilization is proclaimed there. It means the additional units will be created which it is necessary to be equipped with the weapon.
But Americans didn’t get used to lose. And convulsions, paroxysm of indignation can be shown by them in any form.
I am sure they can’t recover from that Europeans so played a trick with them for the first time and they didn’t manage to solve two main tasks in Ukraine — to involve Russia in war, even to hammer a wedge between Russia and Europe and to do some fighting for the interests to the last Ukrainian. And it is valid, very strong defeat, after all if to look at the text of the contract and to ask: «where are the Americans here?», so the answer is: «anywhere».