Anniversary of the Kharkiv agreements: what the experts say
The second anniversary of the signing of the Kharkiv agreements once again demonstrated the instability of bilateral relations between Ukraine and Russia. As elections are coming to Ukraine, statements on the revision of the Kharkiv agreements signed in 2010 are increasingly heard. The attitude of the Ukrainian side to Moscow is becoming increasingly confrontational. If last year even the slightest rumors about the possibility of revising these contracts were perceived as stupid, today the situation has changed dramatically: this topic is increasingly being raised in the Ukrainian corridors of power.
And the main reason for such changes is rather prosaic: Russian gas. In order to demonstrate to Russia its serious intentions and to express dissatisfaction with the conditions set forth in the contract, a demonstrative trial was held over the former Prime Minister of Ukraine, Yulia Tymoshenko. Now official Kiev is beginning to demand a reduction in the cost of blue fuel to the amount that it considers fair.
You should not think long to understand what exactly should become a “pawn” in this game. The Russian Black Sea Fleet is a kind of change, around which everything is spinning.
Opposition Ukrainian political forces are confident that everything that is happening clearly indicates that forecasts of that part of the population that were very skeptical of this kind of agreement are beginning to come true. The first unambiguous hints that Russia, even in its thoughts, does not have Ukraine as an equal partner, and also does not consider the desire of the Ukrainian side to build good neighborly relations, appeared a year after the signing of the Kharkov agreements. And this was expressed, first of all, in the refusal to help resolve the socio-economic problems that arose through the fault of the Black Sea fleet. Plus, political issues were added.
According to the opposition, despite the fact that Dmitry Medvedev has repeatedly stated that special social and economic assistance will be provided to Sevastopol, as the main base of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, this assistance has so far been expressed in a very specific form.
At the same time, they mention that the debt of the Russian Black Sea Fleet to the city budget of Sevastopol is about 20 million hryvnia, of which deductions to the pension fund amount to about 6990 thousand hryvnia, and the rest of the amount is tax arrears. In the Russian national currency, this amount is 92 million rubles. As a result, the staff of the Lazarevskiy Admiralty, which has been carrying out work to restore and maintain the technical condition of ships for several years, has not received the money earned. Currently, wage arrears are on the order of 4,3 million hryvnia.
In addition, the leadership of the Russian Black Sea Fleet is also responsible for one more debt - it has not yet paid off with local residents under the program of equity participation in the construction of an apartment building in Astana Kesaeva Street. Despite the investment, Sevastopol residents have been waiting for the promised housing for more than a year.
In the opinion of the opposition, the expectations of the local leadership regarding the growth of Russian businessmen’s contributions to the development of the city’s infrastructure are no less unrealistic even though the Russian side has announced that it has successfully overcome the effects of the economic crisis. In contrast, the level of investment compared with 2010 year, the previous year fell by a quarter.
Some Ukrainians believe that today the main feature of the development of the Kharkiv agreements is the emergence of problems of a political nature, in particular, gas relations. It is no secret to anyone that the Russian leadership is resorting to the gas issue in those cases when it is necessary to make Kiev more compliant in those issues that at one time or another are a priority for Moscow. But the Ukrainian leadership is not lagging behind its Russian colleagues, resorting to the issue of providing leases to the Russian Black Sea Fleet in the Crimea, when Moscow openly demands "obedience" and "concessions" in this or that matter. Thus, the policy of mutual pressure became the basis of the Kharkiv agreements and is maintained to this day.
Oppositionists also say that since the Ukrainian side made several mistakes in 2010 in the “rent-for-gas” relationship, it is clear that it had to look for new ways to persuade Russia to agree to provide additional discounts on this “product” . Moscow agreed, but demanded the participation of Ukraine in the Customs Union, which is under its direct control. In addition, another proposal was received: to consider taking part in a joint military-political alliance. And since Kiev has not yet given a definite answer, the Russian government has resumed attempts to keep the situation in Ukraine under its control.
So, in 2011, in the Crimea, two Russian military personnel (representatives of special services) made an attempt to acquire listening equipment, but did it through a worldwide network, obviously bearing in mind the enormous 2009 scandal of the year, when one of the Russian special services officers was detained on the Ukrainian-Russian border with similar equipment. But for some reason they ordered it directly to Ukraine, for which, strictly speaking, they paid for it: both of them received conclusions on 4,5.
In addition, some opposition politicians claim that the department of information-psychological struggle has resumed its activities in the Russian Black Sea Fleet. The distribution of propaganda materials has also been expanded. Thus, the circulation of the Flag of the Motherland newspaper, the creator of which is considered the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, was increased. The publication of the newspaper “The Russian community of Sevastopol” was resumed. It is still being published in the printing house of the Black Sea Fleet. But the newspaper, there is nothing wrong with that, if it were not for one “but”, they say in the opposition: it promotes international discord, as well as repeated calls for the annexation of Sevastopol to Russia.
They also note that Russian activists have a large arsenal of forms and methods for implementing Russian foreign policy towards Ukraine.
As for the opinions of experts, they also had different opinions about who was more advantageous about these agreements. Thus, according to V.Karasev, director of the Institute of Global Announcements, Russia’s Kharkiv contracts were beneficial in terms of strategy, since they allowed the extension of the Black Sea Fleet’s tenure to the year 2042, while according to previous agreements it had to leave Ukraine already in 2017 year For Ukraine, this is a tactical victory, since in this way an attempt was made to obtain a one-time discount in the gas issue. The analyst is confident that both parties have different opinions on the effectiveness of the agreements, since each of them pursued completely different goals.
In addition, the expert added that he was confident that Ukraine would soon see complaints about rent inconsistencies and similar nuances that are not legally regulated. At the same time, the political analyst believes that the signing of the Kharkiv agreements was necessary for both states, because it made it possible to somewhat stabilize relations between them.
According to the Ukrainian expert V. Bala, after the inauguration of the new Russian president, the parties can sit down at the negotiating table on the reduction of prices for natural gas. And on the part of Russia, it would be strategically correct to give up on the price issue if Ukraine agrees to support participation in the Customs Union, because only in this case will V. Putin’s plans to re-establish a powerful state within the Russian Federation (which used to be called the USSR and have a large influence on political and economic processes in the world).
The Russian expert M.Nenashev is a little more optimistic in his conclusions regarding the effectiveness of the agreements. He says that both parties benefited from signing contracts. It is worth remembering only the growth of commodity turnover between the two states, which reached 40 billion dollars. At the same time, he noted that the Russian government is concerned that the Ukrainian side in every way impedes the presence of the Russian Black Sea Fleet in the Crimea.
He also noted that the regime of Yanukovych did not become more favorable for Russian sailors in the Crimea than during the years of Yushchenko’s presidency. But, all those who supported the new forces somehow did not immediately notice that no one is going to repeal the laws that were signed under the previous regime, and in fact they greatly complicate the life of the Russian military. This, in particular, the rules of redeployment of equipment and personnel, did not resolve the issue of providing them with apartments that were built at the expense of the Moscow budget. In addition, the Ukrainian side to everything also requires a paid registration of every military man who arrives in the service in the Crimea.
From all that has been said, it is clearly seen that the new regime listens carefully and adopts the words of the opponents of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, the main argument “against” of which is the assertion that its content on Ukrainian territory does little, but Ukraine can lose a lot (here accidentally mentioned the possibility of the beginning of an armed conflict in Iran, into which Ukraine can be drawn, if it does not give up the Russian lease).
Both sides are well aware that the revision of the Kharkiv agreements is quite possible, especially if opposition forces come to power in Ukraine after the parliamentary elections. For Russia, such a development is hardly desirable, and certainly it will not contribute to the strengthening of relations. According to the head of the CIS Center of the Diplomatic Academy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia S. Zhiltsov, the revision of contracts will have negative consequences. Very little time has passed since the date of signing. And if each time one or another treaty is revised, then a big cross can be put on the development of bilateral relations.
Therefore, in the current situation, both the Ukrainian and the Russian government should consider the problem of fulfilling their obligations under the Kharkiv agreements, since it is already clear that this will not be easy to do, especially in light of the change of power in the Russian Federation.
Information