A Glimmer of Hope

By+Yu+Lintao

Thanks to the mediation and shuttle diplomacy of European leaders—German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande—four-party peace talks between Germany， France， Russia and Ukraine were resumed in the Belarusian capital Minsk on February 12 and produced an anticipated yet joyless ceasefire deal after intense negotiations.

Though observers were affirmative that the new truce deal was to be honored by all parties， the temporary progress would not ensure the settlement of the crisis. Due to the complexity of the situation， the ultimate solution lies in a strategic compromise between Russia and the United States.

A year after the crisis broke out， the U.S.-led economic sanctions against Russia have failed to turn the Ukrainian situation around. Latest UN statistics showed that the civil conflict in Ukraine had claimed more than 5，300 lives， leaving thousands of families in the countrys eastern parts homeless. Moreover， the U.S.-dominated strategy has not only intensified tensions between Moscow and the West， but also put serious economic and security pressure on both sides.

Conflicting interests

Ahead of the Minsk talks， Hollande and Merkel visited Kiev and Moscow and held lengthy talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Merkel also paid a short visit to Washington to coordinate Germanys stance with U.S. President Barack Obama.

Observers said the escalating tensions in Ukraine are now a matter of deep concern for European countries. Many Europeans are aware of Washingtons underlying aim to exploit the Ukraine crisis in order to weaken Russia， and are unwilling to risk their own security to advance the U.S. agenda.

As the Ukrainian army lost ground in its battle against the pro-independence antigovernment forces， Washington threatened to provide weapons to Ukraine for “selfdefense.” Commander of the U.S. Army in Europe Frederick Hodges also disclosed recently that the United States was planning to train the Ukrainian army starting from March this year.

Russia has since warned of the serious consequences that could follow U.S. arms shipments to Ukraine， which it said would escalate the conflict.

Feng Yujun， a senior researcher on Eastern European studies with the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations （CICIR）， said the U.S. moves are not conducive to the settlement of the current crisis， but are rather more likely to expand the war. European countries would likely become the first victims of resulting blowback.

The U.S. proposal has drawn rebukes from many European leaders. When addressing the 51st Munich Security Conference recently， German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen declared that providing arms to Ukraine would add fuel to the flames of the crisis. On the same occasion， defense ministers from Italy， Britain and Holland all claimed that only non-deadly military assistance should be provided to Ukraine， adding that the conflict can be solved only through diplomacy.

In an interview with France Inter Radio about whether France would send weapons to Kiev， French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said， “[Sending weapons] is not among our plans. We think arming is not the solution in the case of Ukraine. We believe the solution is a political one，” Fabius said.

Jia Xiudong， a researcher with the China Institute of International Studies， noted that conflicting interests were behind divergences across the Atlantic. Tensions between the West and Russia have not only damaged the Russian economy， but harmed European business interests as well.

Russias measures taken against the Western sanctions such as reducing gas supplies to and suspending imports of meat and fruits from Western European countries have also made these countries suffer a great loss， said Jia. “Along with its sluggish economy， the euro is continually depreciating， which has formed a stark comparison with the strong U.S. dollar and the recovering U.S. economy. European countries wish to avoid becoming victims of the deterioration of the Ukraine crisis，”Jia added.

Instability in Ukraine has a different impact on Europe than on the United States. Should the Ukraine crisis persist and deteriorate， and should a new round of cold war break out as some fear， the United States would be the only one poised to gain while all other parties would certainly lose. After all， it is improbable that the flames raging in Ukraine would spill over the Atlantic Ocean and reach U.S. territory. It is much more likely that the potential full outbreak of war would engulf both Europe and Russia if left unchecked.

In an interview with Global Times， a Beijingbased news daily， Paris University professor Zhao Yongsheng said that a stable Ukraine is important for Europe， and its role as a buffer zone also benefits Russia. As for the United States， the Ukraine crisis can be used as a dual strategy to both weaken Russias influence and contain Europes economic strength by dragging them into a quagmire.

The essential point

After more than 16 hours of overnight discussions， the world breathed a sigh of relief as a joint statement was announced by the four parties.

Based on the deal， an “unconditional and comprehensive” ceasefire in eastern Ukraine was effective from February 15. The deal also envisaged the withdrawal of heavy weapons by both sides from the frontline， which should begin no later than the second day after the ceasefire， and the establishment of a buffer zone with a width of 50 to 70 km in southeastern Ukraine.

The four leaders also stressed in the ceasefire plan that “they are strongly convinced that a peaceful settlement is the sole option [for the resolution of the crisis]，”a position that distinguished them from President Obama who said days ago that “the possibility of [arming Kiev with] lethal defensive weapons is one of those options that is being examined.”

Responding to claims that the deal was a mere replica of that agreed upon in September 2014， Feng of the CICIR said that as the situation has changed a great deal since then， the new deal is more likely to be successful.

Due to Western sanctions and the drop of oil prices， Russia is eager to seek a peace deal， said Feng. “Otherwise， the continual deterioration of the crisis will bring disaster to the Russian economy，” he added.

While Ukraine is not completely satisfied with the deal， it is even less willing to risk greater losses in battle， said Feng.

However， Feng stressed that the new deal is not a complete solution to the crisis.

Even though guns will fall silent and a buffer zone will be created， as Merkel pointed out after the talks， “big hurdles” still remain despite “the glimmer of hope.”

Zhang Yao， a researcher with the Shanghai Institute for International Studies， echoed Fengs views， noting that the Ukraine crisis involves the territorial issue of Crimea as well as the political status of the Ukraines eastern states Donetsk and Lugansk.

“There is almost no way to reverse the status of Crimea， which is already on the map as having been annexed by Russia，” said Zhang.

Feng said that the essential problem of the Ukraine crisis is not the dispute between Russia and Ukraine， but is rather the struggle for strategic space between Russia and the West， particularly the United States. The crisis in the Eastern European country is essentially a geopolitical chess match.

Zhang added that the eastward expansion of the EU and NATO has inevitably squeezed Russias strategic space. Russia， for its own strategic interest， needs Ukraine at least to maintain a neutral position and serve as a buffer zone between itself and NATO.

Feng concluded that finding a strategic compromise between Russia and the United States—a crucial element in the settlement of the crisis—remains a monumental challenge.