The solution to the Ukrainian problem will directly depend on how the military operations unfold in Donbass. If the militia fighters take over the strategic initiative, win back Donbass and extend the war to the Zaporozhye and the Kharkov regions, then Kiev will be more amenable to a compromise

       The Minsk meeting between the leaders of the Customs Union member-states, the Ukrainian president and EU representatives confirmed the underlying trend of the Ukrainian conflict that took shape in late June. Since then, the Berlin Declaration was adopted on July 2, 2014. Russia, continental Europe and Belarus are becoming increasingly aware of the need to overcome the Ukraine crisis to prevent the further escalation of the war. However, to do so, it is necessary to find a mediator. The meeting in Minsk is another step on the way to locating such a mediator.

       It is imperative to recognize the importance of the meeting having effectively taken place, as earlier even the possibility of holding a meeting was denied by all sides. For the first time ever, Kiev showed its willingness to open a dialogue with Moscow provided that the EU-Customs Union mechanism is in place. This is due to the fact that Russia's hopes for France and Germany to act as mediators in resolving the Ukraine crisis vanished over the past two months. In late May, the sides planned to form a tripartite joint contact group similar to the one in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1994. It was supposed to serve as a mediator between Russia, the United States and Britain in developing a solution for Ukraine. However, these plans failed to materialize.

       No explicit agreements were achieved during the Minsk meeting, which, I believe, is not unusual, since neither side feels that it lost the war. At the moment, everyone is betting on achieving a military victory. Kiev will cherish such plans up until the moment when it starts having the feeling that all is lost and it must sit down and talk, as was the case with Azerbaijan in 1993 during the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict or Moldova in 1992. Now, the conflicting forces are balanced, which automatically reduces the possibility of explicit agreements to zero.

       Hence, the question: why did Vladimir Putin and Pyotr Poroshenko meet in a bilateral format? I believe that the reason has to do with the advances of self-defense forces. The Ukrainian president’s hopes for the rapid completion of military operations failed to materialize. Poroshenko relied on a blitz, whereby the militia fighters were supposed to be defeated and Donetsk and Lugansk to be taken back by August 24. This hasn’t happened, and it became clear that the war will last longer. Poroshenko realizes that the more coffins arrive in Ukraine, the more they weaken his grip on power, which forced him to accept this dialogue without explicit obligations.

       Notably, it’s unlikely that the presidents of Russia and Ukraine discussed a ceasefire, as Kiev still hopes to win and is not willing to negotiate a ceasefire or end the war for that matter. It is also important to understand the terms on which a ceasefire can be achieved. Clearly, the pro-Russian militia fighters would like to see the Trans-Dniester options work out for them whereby the Ukrainian troops withdraw from Donbass and a peacekeeping corridor is established, or a Karabakh-like ceasefire is put into place. This is impossible at the moment, as Ukraine is not prepared to accept any of these terms and there’s no subject for talks about a ceasefire.

       I believe that, over the long term, the solution to the Ukrainian problem will directly depend on how the military operations unfold in Donbass. If the militia fighters take over the strategic initiative, win back Donbass and extend the war to the Zaporozhye and the Kharkov regions, then Kiev will be more amenable to a compromise, especially when it sees the economy take an even deeper plunge. If this doesn’t happen, then Kiev will become even less accommodating during the next talks that may, or may not, take place in the future.

       Views expressed are of individual Members and Contributors, rather than the Club's, unless explicitly stated otherwise.