THE EUROPEAN – SECURITY AND DEFENCE UNION
In the Spotlight
+++ EU and Russia +++
Russia will not return Crimea to Ukraine in the foreseeable future
The Minsk II Agreement is the only base for détente
Interview with Dr Ioan Mircea Paşcu MEP, Vice-President, European Parliament, Strasbourg/Brussels
The European: Vice-President Paşcu, in early 2016 you have contributed an article to this magazine in your position as Vice-President of the European Parliament on “Re-establishing the Euro-Atlantic Region”, declaring that Russia and the West are in the same boat, but that reconciliation with Russia is only possible under certain conditions. This was two years after the annexation of the Crimea by Russia (18 March 2014) and one year after the so called “Minsk II Agreement”(12 February 2015) which offered a glimmer of hope, as German Chancellor Angela Merkel put it. Do you still have any hope for a revision of the Crimea Status or are in these days other political issues prevailing? Ioan M. Paşcu: My initial skepticism has not diminished; on the contrary, it became stronger with respect to a return of Crimea to Ukraine, because, after all, this is the essence of any “Crimea Status”. Russia – especially under its current leadership – will not return Crimea to Ukraine in the foreseeable future. Besides, international attention is now focused on other issues, (North Korea, for instance), as you correctly pointed out.
Ioan M. Paşcu: I think that, at least for the time being, the West cannot do more than it does, namely denying recognition of the illegal annexation and maintaining the sanctions imposed for it. Any departure from this position, either in relaxing it or in hardening it is detrimental because – given the expected resistance of Russia – will indicate either capitulation or impotence, which is pretty much the same and any weakening of the sanctions regime with regard to Crimea – I am not speaking about Eastern Ukraine – will most probably be interpreted as a de facto recognition of the annexation. The European: Do you think that the West has the stamina? Ioan M. Paşcu: I am afraid that we, the West, have to brace ourselves for a long voyage. This does not mean that, in the light of Russia’s history, abrupt changes are completely excluded (see Brest-Litovsk1), only that logical expectation is for a long wait. In the meantime, the West has made very clear that the implementation of the Minsk II Agreements by Russia – and the separatists it supports in Eastern Ukraine – is, currently, the key to starting the normalisation process.
The European: You don’t see a “return” scenario”? Ioan M. Paşcu: Indeed there is a small detail which, if optimistically interpreted, might suggest that Russia contemplates a “return” scenario sometime in the future: it is the separate status for Sevastopol (with its naval base), from the rest of Crimea, even in the current federal arrangement for the Peninsula. This “separation” might indicate that keeping Sevastopol will be part of a return agreement, but …
The European: I agree that a revival of Minsk II might be a solution; but in which sense? It can’t repair the annexing of the Crimea? Ioan M. Paşcu: Indeed, you touched the most sensitive aspect of the matter: the Minsk Agreements and the accompanying sanctions regime are not related to Crimea, they are related to Eastern Ukraine!
The European: Indeed a very optimistic interpretation. Recon ciliation is far away, if I understand you right, but could the West continue to accept the Crimea “fait accompli” and let fade away a solution to the next century?
The European: Indeed, the illegally annexed Crimea is not mentioned at all in the text of Minsk II. Ioan M. Paşcu: Minsk II is primarily a cease-fire accord; it does contain politically loaded provisions, with impact on the future
that, for the strict implementation of the Minsk II Agreements, “IthethinkNormandy Format continues to be necessary.”
Ioan M. Paşcu MEP
14
