After the “Census of friends of Ukraine” – an outbreak of emotions in Moscow

Even the international company Coca Cola was not protected from such a failure: a topographical error was left in the 2016 New Year’s campaign, a fact contrary to international law. Outraged by social media, the company soon wrote a letter of apology to the Ukrainian embassy in the United States and corrected the map view.

The reaction was so swift that beverage consumers in Ukraine did not follow through on their promises to boycott the popular drink, which is bottled in a large factory near Kiev. This seemingly small incident clearly shows how the issue of the occupation of the Ukraine peninsula has been neglected: they are not in the “big” information space, he writes. delfi.lt/ru.

The war in Donbass is known and talked about much more than what is heard about the occupation of Crimea. Also important is the existence of the Normandy format: a high-level dialogue between the four countries (Ukraine, Russia, France and Germany) on the resolution of the conflict in eastern Ukraine. And while Moscow constantly tries to downplay these negotiations at the level of Kiev and the proclaimed republics, that format still exists.

And in the case of Crimea, things are different: there are many United Nations resolutions calling for the restoration of Ukraine’s territorial integrity, individual states impose sanctions on the aggressor country, but so far there has not been a single international platform for try to address. the Crimean problem.

Crimea and Donbass look completely different in the eyes of the international community. The latter is scorched earth, the site of a humanitarian catastrophe. If European politicians visit the region, they come exclusively to the controlled areas of Kiev. The “Lugansk People’s Republic” and the “Donetsk People’s Republic” are visited by very special foreigners: they are often extreme extremists or “soldiers of success”.

And here the parliamentarians of Germany, France and Italy do not hesitate to visit Crimea. These are mainly representatives of Eurosceptic parties who are sympathetic to Russia, but the fact is that these visits do not have serious consequences for European politicians. And companies are sometimes happy to evade sanctions – the scandal over the supply of Siemens turbines to the occupied peninsula is clear confirmation of this.

Moscow hardly expected that the international community would soon accept the occupation of Crimea. Therefore, the Kremlin has decided to choose the path of “progressive” legitimacy: a minimal discussion of the Crimean problem in the field of information, especially at the diplomatic level, pressing for the gradual elimination of sanctions, speculation on supply of water, which Russia believes that Ukraine should supply the peninsula and occupied territory in its entirety, militarization following the example of the Kaliningrad region.

Kiev’s decision to organize the Crimean Platform, an international coordination mechanism aimed at returning the peninsula to Ukraine, is a serious proactive step that has sparked a touch of excitement in Moscow. The Russian president’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, called the platform a “hostile anti-Russian measure.”

The Crimean platform has been preparing for a long time and systematically, and the date of its first summit has been chosen quite successfully – August 23 this year, the eve of the 30th anniversary of Ukraine’s declaration of independence.

As jokes in the environment of experts, the summit became a kind of “Census of friends of Ukraine”. In fact, the qualitative and quantitative composition of the delegations (46 in total) shows that this is largely the case. Eastern European countries (including Lithuania), which constantly support the restoration of Ukraine’s territorial integrity, were presented at the summit as high-level participants.

The “heavyweight” European Union and the United States sent ministers to Kiev. Solidarity has been expressed by countries as distant as Japan. New Zealand and Canada have delegated their ambassadors. It is significant that there is no representative of Azerbaijan on the Crimean platform. In the recent Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Kiev has openly supported the country to restore territorial integrity.

Baku was indirectly represented at the summit by Altai Efendiyev, general secretary of GUAM (an organization established in Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova in the 1990s, which today gave way to the Western Partnership program of the European Union).

The summit was in solidarity with Russia’s restriction and the need to end the occupation of Crimea. According to Volodymyr Zelensky, this is a task that Ukraine cannot overcome on its own. Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda declared that the Crimean platform is significant “in the context of further non-recognition of the illegal and illegal annexation of Crimea.” Other leaders and politicians spoke similarly. However, words that could hardly be described as comforting to Kiev penetrated with joy and optimism.

Valdis Dombrovskis, Executive Vice President of the European Commission, stated that he does not see any prospect of starting the procedure for Ukraine’s accession to the European Union in the next three to five years. Estonian President Kersti Kaljulaid said three days after the summit in an interview with Evropeiskaja pravda that Kiev would need “20 years of work” to achieve European integration. Such a replica of European politicians is actively exploited by Russian propaganda and its spokesmen: it is explained that no one in Ukraine is waiting for the European Union, so what is the point of pressing there?

However, the essence of the Crimean Platform is not the future of Ukraine in the European Union. The Kiev summit adopted a declaration based on synergies and coordination on the peaceful abolition of the occupation of Crimea, new sanctions, pressure on Russia to implement international law and cooperation at the level of national parliaments. So the result of the inaugural event is basically good. The crucial question is: how will the platform work in the future?

On the same day, August 23, an office of the Crimean Platform was opened in the Ukrainian capital, which, according to the President of Ukraine, will be open 24 hours a day. But even if Kiev adheres to such a regime, how active will the signatories of the declaration be?

The Russian side has already heard the annoyance and harassment that the platform is just a one-time event with no real consequences. It is very likely that the same Eastern European countries, in particular Poland and Lithuania, will follow their position on the abolition of the occupation of Crimea in the most consistent way. Significantly, German leader Angela Merkel visited Kiev the day before the Crimean Platform event, but did not stay or attend the summit.

None of the G7 leaders arrived in Kiev on August 23, which is also a sign that can hardly be called positive. Optimists explain that the G7 is definitely in favor of the platform, it is simply the leaders of these countries who are most concerned about the Afghan problem today. Pessimists believe that the Kiev initiative is simply being sabotaged by Nord Stream 2, which, for example, is more important to Berlin than the Crimean platform.

In principle, the following conclusion can be drawn: Kiev has gone from a reactive to a proactive policy in the field of abolishing the occupation of its territories; this is an unmistakable advantage. The circle of allies (at least at the declaration level) is wide enough. The activity of the participants of the Crimean platform will depend on the actual state of their relations with Moscow.

And it is unstable in the case of every country that sent its representatives to the Kiev summit. Today, Moscow can “push gently”, tomorrow it can intervene in elections, sabotage (as in the case of the arms bases in the Czech Republic), use toxic substances of the Novičiok type, “invest” in destabilization (either in a referendum in Catalonia or a “yellow referendum”). vest protests in France). At such times, the Crimean platform can be remembered even by those countries for whom today the Russian threat seems distant and abstract.