Today there is almost a consensus of Russia, the United States and the European Union regarding the situation in the Donbas: there is no alternative to Minsk-2.
In my opinion, there is a reasonable alternative to the Minsk agreements. Moreover, it can arrange all the opposing sides to one degree or another. The solution to this problem lies on the surface and is to freeze the conflict.
In many ways, the complex and explosive geopolitical situation that has developed in recent years, forcing the world's leading players to show restraint where there is a potential threat of a global war. The existing status quo in the framework of the formula “neither war nor peace” will be beneficial to all, but with some reservations.
So, we will consider the starting positions of the participants and guarantors of the signing of Minsk-2 before its implementation.
Donbass paid too high a price for finding such a fragile truce. This is the price - thousands of dead civilians and militias. This is the price - crippled destinies, destruction and tears.
That is why about any return LDNR in the Ukraine can not be considered.
After all, the Russian tricolor was raised over the regional administration buildings in Donetsk and Lugansk in the spring of 2014, so that our cities would ever desecrate the Ukrainian flag.
As the defeated side of the Kiev junta, it would be time to learn that control over the border with the Russian Federation was paid in blood and it would be wiser to accept the inevitable.
Another thing is that we understand that the issue of border transfer is one of the last points of the Minsk agreements, and the Ukrainian side will not be able to move so far towards the implementation of Minsk-2.
The first stumbling block for her will be the law on the amnesty of participants in the events in the Donbas. I am sure that the Verkhovna Rada will never accept this law in the form that flows from the Minsk agreements. The Nazis of all stripes will lay down their bones to block its adoption.
The second obstacle will be the infamous special status law, which has already passed the 31 August 2015 strength test. Let me remind you, then, as a result of clashes between the National Guard and the radicals, protesting against the law on decentralization, several policemen were killed in front of the Verkhovna Rada building, and dozens were injured of varying severity.
Consequently, we should not worry about the inevitable return to Ukraine. However, at the diplomatic level, it is necessary to continue the pressure on Kiev in order to force it to unconditionally fulfill Minsk-2.
For the ruling Ukrainian regime, the implementation of the Minsk agreements is a political suicide. Moreover, suicide is still in the process, not after their execution. The widespread opinion that Western curators will press through Ukraine and force it to execute Minsk-2 seems untenable to me. The unprecedented level of Russophobia does not give Kiev the slightest chance to fulfill the will of their employers.
Hence the conclusion that a frozen conflict is an indispensable condition for the survival of the so-called Ukrainian politic.
For Russia, the signing of the Minsk agreements was the only way to stop the extermination of Donbass residents without joining a big war. During the truce, she managed to prevent a social catastrophe, strengthen civil institutions, and help people's republics to form an efficient army.
Freezing the conflict according to the Abkhaz scenario (with the prospect of recognition) will mean the de facto joining of the LDNR into Russia, which will be true in all respects.
Conclusion "Minsk-2" allowed the United States and the European Union, first of all, to save face. They had the opportunity to declare to the world community that, thanks to their diplomatic efforts, the Russian “aggression” was stopped.
The European Union has accumulated a critical mass of unsolved problems, and it would with great pleasure withdraw itself from the Ukrainian problem, but, being a guarantor of the Minsk agreements, it is forced to constantly declare its adherence to the Minsk agreements. I think that the end of the hot phase of this war in any form would fully correspond to European interests.
The American "partners", of course, set as their goal the continuation and expansion of military operations in Ukraine. But their big plans were violated by the unexpected entry of Russia into the Syrian war on the side of the legally elected President Assad.
Going for broke in the Ukrainian direction, the United States will not risk until the geopolitical alignment of the rather complicated situation in Syria finally clarifies. Get two defeats at once in the midst of a presidential campaign for Democrats to die like. Now they need time to choose priorities and outline a future strategy for their actions. They simply do not have time to adequately respond to the rapid geopolitical steps of Vladimir Putin.
In connection with the election campaign in the United States and the lack of a clear position on Syria, freezing the conflict in the Donbas in the short term will not cause a particularly nervous reaction in Washington.
The conclusion suggests itself: a reasonable alternative to the “Minsk-2” exists, and this is not a war, but a freezing of the conflict according to the Abkhaz scenario.
Time objectively works on Russia and the Donbass. The irreversible process of disintegration of the Ukrainian state is rapidly gaining momentum, and it is already impossible to stop it. Let's hope that in the foreseeable future, the entire Southeast of the former Ukraine will certainly join the Donbass.