Four-Way Talks On Ukraine's Multiple Identity

Talks between Ukraine, Russia, the EU and the US in Geneva are set to deescalate the crisis in Ukraine. But it seems unlikely that international diplomacy will resolve questions over Ukraine's national identity.

On Tuesday (15.04.2014), the Ukrainian government launched a "full-scale anti-terrorist operation" to remove the pro-Russian protesters and militias who have been occupying nearly 10 cities in eastern Ukraine.



In a telephone conversation with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, also on Tuesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that Ukraine is on the brink of civil war. NATO head Anders Fogh Rasmussen seemed to agree that the situation was escalating. On Wednesday, NATO announced a series of steps to boost forces in Eastern Europe, with an increase in air, sea and land forces to take place immediately.



Still, four-way talks in Geneva between Russia, Ukraine, the EU and the US are slated for Thursday, with the aim of finding a diplomatic path forward for the Ukraine crisis, even as tensions continue to rise on the ground and calls for federalization grow louder.



But what the Kremlin called the "anti-constitutional course to use force against peaceful protest actions" in Ukraine could imperil the talks in Geneva, Russian foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said.



Escalation could throw off talks



Christian Caryl, an Eastern Europe specialist and senior fellow at the Legatum Institute, thinks it's very likely that talks will be called off. "It's going to be very interesting to see whether the talks can even occur if Ukraine moves ahead with this operation to assert its own sovereignty over these areas," he says.



"The Russian media were saying that the Ukrainian troops are being used against civilians. And that seems to be the line from the Kremlin - that it's Ukraine's fault if there is any kind of violence in those areas in the east which are now under dispute."



The capture by armed pro-Russian militants of buildings in several eastern Ukrainan towns has so far been carried out without bloodshed. Caryl praises the "immense forbearance" the Ukrainian military has shown in trying to "very tentatively and gently" reassert control.



Glen Howard, the president of the US Jamestown Foundation, a Eurasia research institute, thinks a lot hinges on whether violence between Ukrainian and pro-Russian forces escalates. "As long as there's no major bloodshed in Eastern Ukraine I think the talks are going to go forward."







He is optimistic about the talks themselves, as well. "I think the fact that the Russians are sitting down in a room with the Ukrainians is a major step forward. So far they've failed to recognize the interim government in Kyiv - so that itself is an achievement."



Not all talk



The US State Department seems to agree that even having the meeting is an important step. Spokeswoman Jen Psaki said talks aim to "de-escalate the situation," but Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland added: "I have to say that we don't have high expectations for these talks."



Fittingly, on Tuesday, the US State Department said that it anticipates more Ukraine-related sanctions on Russia but that no action was likely before the meeting in Geneva.



Both Caryl and Howard agree that further sanctions could be beneficial. According to Howard, the West needs to "send some messages to Putin that this is not business as usual" particularly by decreasing its energy dependency on Russia and helping Ukraine do the same. Currently 30 percent of the EU's natural gas imports and 35 percent of its oil supplies come from Russia.



Western leverage



But the two experts differ on how much Western measures can really influence events in Ukraine.



Caryl says that even with sanctions and potential Western assistance for Ukraine, "one of the big problems here is I'm not sure there's that much the West can do. Ukraine is not a NATO member, it's much easier for the Russians to go in there and interfere and stir things up than it is for the Europeans."



Howard on the other hand is sure that the West needs to step up its response to the crisis in Ukraine. "By saying 'we're not going to do anything at all about this area,' you're not helping the situation," he says.



"You have to offer some level of military assistance to the Ukraine," Howard adds, explaining that he is not necessarily referring to "boots on the ground" but instead means providing military equipment and sharing intelligence.



"You can't just go into negotiations with no military leverage. And right now, going into these talks, Putin has all the momentum and he has the military leverage," he says.



Not black and white



But though diplomatic posturing makes the situation seem clear-cut, it is far from simple on the ground, as Christian Caryl explains. He spoke to DW after a trip to the mostly Russian-speaking city of Odesa in southern Ukraine. Caryl explained that the population is not always clearly pro-Russian and anti-Ukrainian or vice versa.



"You hear all of this sentiment that is quite skeptical of the central government in Ukraine and quite positive towards Russia. And then after people have unloaded themselves of that they'll say 'but actually, I would still like Ukraine to exist as a sovereign state. I don't want any outside governments telling us what to do here,'" he says.



"I have encountered very little expression of outright desire to just be swallowed up by Russia. And the polls also suggest that this is a very common attitude," Caryl adds.



A Ukrainian federation



Instead, one of the most commonly discussed solutions for Ukraine's future has been federalization. On Monday, the pro-Western interim government in Kyiv proposed a referendum on such a move to decentralize the country on May 25, at the same time as the presidential election. Russia has frequently demanded federalization.



But as Christian Caryl explains, "federalization has always been a touchy word in Ukraine precisely because for the government in Kyiv, it has often been feared to mean much greater interference by Russia in Ukraine's internal affairs." He thinks that Russia could be hoping for "a series of autonomous regions or even perhaps something like a new country formed out of the southern and eastern parts of Ukraine, which it would not annex but which would essentially be a kind of protectorate."



"So the tricky part is how you define federalization. And perhaps there is a formula that will satisfy both Kyiv and Moscow. I'm not holding my breath," he says.



But he adds that despite reservations, "it's quite clear that Ukraine probably can't go on as the very centralized kind of state that it's been over the past twenty years." Caryl thinks the Ukrainian government is likely to have to devolve some authority to local governments to address some of the grievances behind separatism. Activists in Donetsk, for example, proclaimed the formation of a "Donetsk People's Republic" on April 6.



When it comes to Thursday's talks, the "f-word" is clearly taboo. On Tuesday, Ukrainian UN representative Yury Klimenko announced that his delegation would not discuss federalization. "The issue is not on the agenda," Klimenko said.