Council Decision (Cfsp) 2020/1269
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Minsk II a Fragile Ceasefire
Briefing 16 July 2015 Ukraine: Follow-up of Minsk II A fragile ceasefire SUMMARY Four months after leaders from France, Germany, Ukraine and Russia reached a 13-point 'Package of measures for the implementation of the Minsk agreements' ('Minsk II') on 12 February 2015, the ceasefire is crumbling. The pressure on Kyiv to contribute to a de-escalation and comply with Minsk II continues to grow. While Moscow still denies accusations that there are Russian soldiers in eastern Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin publicly admitted in March 2015 to having invaded Crimea. There is mounting evidence that Moscow continues to play an active military role in eastern Ukraine. The multidimensional conflict is eroding the country's stability on all fronts. While the situation on both the military and the economic front is acute, the country is under pressure to conduct wide-reaching reforms to meet its international obligations. In addition, Russia is challenging Ukraine's identity as a sovereign nation state with a wide range of disinformation tools. Against this backdrop, the international community and the EU are under increasing pressure to react. In the following pages, the current status of the Minsk II agreement is assessed and other recent key developments in Ukraine and beyond examined. This briefing brings up to date that of 16 March 2015, 'Ukraine after Minsk II: the next level – Hybrid responses to hybrid threats?'. In this briefing: • Minsk II – still standing on the ground? • Security-related implications of the crisis • Russian disinformation -
Ukraine Resolution on Mariupol.Pdf (23.08
DAV15155 S.L.C. 114TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION S. RES. ll Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the January 24, 2015, attacks carried out by Russian-backed rebels on the civilian population in Mariupol, Ukraine, and the provision of lethal and non-lethal military assistance to Ukraine. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES llllllllll Mr. JOHNSON (for himself and Mrs. SHAHEEN) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on llllllllll RESOLUTION Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the January 24, 2015, attacks carried out by Russian-backed rebels on the civilian population in Mariupol, Ukraine, and the provision of lethal and non-lethal military assistance to Ukraine. Whereas Russian-backed rebels continue to expand their cam- paign in Ukraine, which has already claimed more than 5,000 lives and generated an estimated 1,500,000 refu- gees and internally displaced persons; Whereas, on January 23, 2015, Russian rebels pulled out of peace talks with Western leaders; DAV15155 S.L.C. 2 Whereas, on January 24, 2015, the Ukrainian port city of Mariupol received rocket fire from territory in the Donetsk region controlled by rebels; Whereas, on January 24, 2015, Alexander Zakharchenko, leader of the Russian-backed rebel Donetsk People’s Re- public, publicly announced that his troops had launched an offensive against Mariupol; Whereas Mariupol is strategically located on the Sea of Azov and is a sea link between Russian-occupied Crimea and Russia, and could be used to form part of a land bridge between Crimea and -
Citizens and the State in the Government-Controlled Territories of the Donetsk and Luhansk Regions Problems, Challenges and Visions of the Future
Citizens and the state in the government-controlled territories of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions Problems, challenges and visions of the future Funded by: This document has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union through International Alert. The contents of this document are the sole responsibility of International Alert and UCIPR and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union. Layout: Nick Wilmot Creative Front cover image: A mother and daughter living in temporary accommodation for those displaced by the violence in Donetsk, 2014. © Andrew McConnell/Panos © International Alert/Ukrainian Center for Independent Political Research 2017 Citizens and the state in the government-controlled territories of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions Problems, challenges and visions of the future October 2017 2 CONTENTS 1. Introduction 3 2. Methodology 6 3. Findings 7 4. Statements from interviewees 22 5. Conclusions and recommendations 30 Citizens and the state in the government-controlled territories of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions 3 1. INTRODUCTION The demarcation line (the line of contact)1 and the ‘grey zone’ between the government-controlled2 and uncontrolled territories3 of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions separates the parties to the conflict in the east of Ukraine. The areas controlled by the Ukrainian authorities and bordering the ‘grey zone’ are very politically sensitive, highly militarised, and fall under a special governance regime that is different from the rest of the country. In the absence of a comprehensive political settlement and amid uncertain prospects, it is unclear how long this situation will remain. It is highly likely that over the next few years, Ukrainians in areas adjacent to the contact line will live under very particular and unusual governance structures, and in varying degrees of danger. -
Alarmed by Civilian Deaths from Rocket Attacks in Ukraine, Under-Secretary-General, in Security Council Briefing, Calls for Rebels to Reinstate Ceasefire Agreement
26 January 2015 SC/11753 Alarmed by Civilian Deaths from Rocket Attacks in Ukraine, Under-Secretary-General, in Security Council Briefing, Calls for Rebels to Reinstate Ceasefire Agreement 7368th Meeting (PM) Security Council Meetings Coverage Expressing alarm over the high civilian death toll in Ukraine of recent days, along with the shelling of the city of Mariupol, the top United Nations political affairs official called on the rebels to “recommit to the ceasefire and back down from their offensive” in an emergency Security Council meeting this afternoon. “In just five days since we last met on 21 January, close to 50 civilians have been killed and nearly 150 have been seriously injured,” Jeffrey Feltman, Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, said at a meeting requested by Ukraine, less than a week after a full Council briefing on the situation (see Press Release SC/11746). He reiterated that the Minsk ceasefire must be immediately restored, “with the onus particularly on the rebels”. At the same time, he expressed hope that the negotiating mechanism known as the Trilateral Contact Group, consisting of the European Union, the United States, Ukraine and the Russian Federation, could soon renew efforts to implement the broader Minsk accords. Noting that the rebel announcement of withdrawal from the ceasefire on 23 January was accompanied by threats to seize further territory and a boycott of future “consultations” with negotiating mechanisms, he said that it was a violation of their commitments under the Minsk accords signed in September, under which the nominal truce had been declared. He called on them to abide by their commitments. -
The Kremlin's Irregular Army: Ukrainian Separatist Order of Battle
THE KREMLIN’S IRREGULARY ARMY: UKRAINIAN SEPARATIST ORDER OF BATTLE | FRANKLIN HOLCOMB | AUGUST 2017 Franklin Holcomb September 2017 RUSSIA AND UKRAINE SECURITY REPORT 3 THE KREMLIN’S IRREGULAR ARMY: UKRAINIAN SEPARATIST ORDER OF BATTLE WWW.UNDERSTANDINGWAR.ORG 1 Cover: A Pro-Russian separatist sits at his position at Savur-Mohyla, a hill east of the city of Donetsk, August 28, 2014. REUTERS/Maxim Shemetov. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing or from the publisher. ©2017 by the Institute for the Study of War. Published in 2017 in the United States of America by the Instittue for the Study of War. 1400 16th Street NW, Suite 515 | Washington, DC 20036 understandingwar.org 2 Franklin Holcomb The Kremlin’s Irregular Army: Ukrainian Separatist Order of Battle ABOUT THE AUTHOR Franklin Holcomb is a Russia and Ukraine Research Analyst at the Institute for the Study of War where he focuses on the war in Ukraine, Ukrainian politics, and Russian foreign policy in Eastern Europe. His current research focuses on studying the development of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the Russian-backed separatist formations operating in Eastern Ukraine, as well as analyzing Russian political and military activity in Moldova, the Baltic, and the Balkans. Mr. Holcomb is the author of “The Order of Battle of the Ukrainian Armed Forces: A Key Component in European Security,” “Moldova Update: Kremlin Will Likely Seek to Realign Chisinau”, “Ukraine Update: Russia’s Aggressive Subversion of Ukraine,” as well as ISW’s other monthly updates on the political and military situation in Ukraine. -
Annual Report 2014
Annual Report 2014 Annual Report 2014 National Bank of Ukraine National Bank of Ukraine 1 Annual Report 2014 Dear ladies and gentlemen, The year 2014, which was full of dramatic events in all areas of the country’s social and economic life, is now history. Old, unresolved economic problems, such as persistent budget and balance of payments deficits, weak fiscal policy, an ailing energy sector that has gone unreformed for years and a steep decline in the health of banks in the wake of significant deposit outflows - all were evident at the very start of the year. That, together with external aggression, posed great challenges for the National Bank in all of the priority lines of its activity - monetary policy, banking regulation and supervision, providing support for banks, cash circulation and financial infrastructure. This created the need for radical and multidimensional action. Monetary policy required fundamental changes on a top priority basis. In this light, the National Bank made a painful but an absolutely necessary decision to adopt a flexible exchange rate regime as early as the start of the year. A market-based exchange rate prevents economic shocks and is beneficial for the balance of payments current account. In spite of that, in the reporting year, the country was hit by two waves of devaluation resulting from the unwillingness to take the unpopular step to stop maintaining a stable hryvnia exchange rate by artificial means in previous more favorable years, delayed reforms in other economy sectors, as well as an ongoing military conflict. The National Bank had to impose certain restrictions, raise the refinancing rate, and use other monetary policy tools in order to ease high inflation and devaluation pressure. -
Dangerous Myths How Crisis Ukraine Explains
Dangerous Myths How the Crisis in Ukraine Explains Future Great Power Conflict Lionel Beehner A Contemporary Battlefield Assessment Liam Collins by the Modern War Institute August 18, 2020 Dangerous Myths: How the Crisis in Ukraine Explains Future Great Power Conflict Table of Contents Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................................... 1 Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 2 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 Chapter I — Russian Intervention in Ukraine: A Troubled History ............................................. 12 Chapter II — Russian Military Modernization and Strategy ........................................................... 21 Chapter III — Hybrid Warfare Revisited .............................................................................................. 26 Chapter IV — A Breakdown of Russian Hybrid Warfare ................................................................. 31 Proxy Warfare ..................................................................................................................................... 32 Information Warfare .......................................................................................................................... 38 Maritime/Littoral -
The Cases of the Donetsk and Luhansk “People's Republics
ІДЕОЛОГІЯ І ПОЛІТИКА ИДЕОЛОГИЯ И ПОЛИТИКА IDEOLOGY AND POLITICS © 2019 Foundation for Good Politics ISSN 2227-6068 INTERNAL LEGITIMACY AND GOVERNANCE IN THE ABSENCE OF RECOGNITION: THE CASES OF THE DONETSK AND LUHANSK “PEOPLE’S REPUBLICS” Nataliia Kasianenko California State University, Fresno ORCid: 0000-0003-4435-9819 Abstract. This article examines the strategies used by the self-proclaimed governments of the “Donetsk People’s Republic” (DPR) and the “Luhansk People’s Republic” (LPR) in achieving internal legitimacy. It specifically highlights the attempts of the two regimes to use direct democracy and the provision of public goods in eastern Ukraine. The article advances the argument in support of the idea that it is possible to attain legitimacy in the absence of external recognition and sovereignty. The people in the self-proclaimed “people’s republics” in the Donbas express the sense of abandonment by the government in Kyiv as they are largely isolated from the rest of Ukraine. The author explores the ability of the two de facto states to govern when it comes to the provision of basic public goods and services for the residents of the DPR and the LPR. Finally, the author discusses the prospects for reintegrating the Donbas by the Ukrainian government. Key words: legitimacy; governance; Donbas; referendum; Ukraine № 1(12), 2019 116 ІДЕОЛОГІЯ І ПОЛІТИКА ИДЕОЛОГИЯ И ПОЛИТИКА IDEOLOGY AND POLITICS © 2019 Foundation for Good Politics ISSN 2227-6068 Introduction In the spring of 2014, amid political instability that engulfed Ukraine, pro-Russian rebel leaders in the east of Ukraine (the Donbas) took control of the local government buildings. -
Perestroika in History : the First Stage
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR SOVIET AND EASTEUROPEANRESEARC H TITLE : PERESTROIKA IN HISTORY : THE FIRST STAGE AUTHOR : Aleksandr M. Nekrich CONTRACTOR : Harvard University PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR : Adam Ulam/ Aleksandr Nekrich COUNCIL CONTRACT NUMBER : 803-0 6 DATE : February 199 0 The work leading to this report was supported by funds provided b y the National Council for Soviet and East European Research . Th e analysis and interpretations contained in the report are those o f the author . PERESTROIKA IN HISTORY : THE FIRST STAG E Perestroika in History Those historians who did not shame the Marxist view were removed fro m : The First teaching, or accused of anti-state activity . Asa result they were forced to Stage emigrate, or were exiled, or arrested, or shot, and their works went out o f circulation. The advent of Stalinism destroyed "Pokrovsky ' s school" a s well, and this took place through the efforts of its own pupils, not for th e Aleksandr M . Nekrich* first time in history . Later many Soviet social scientists of the new generatio n were liquidated as well . As long as anger and argument rage , The need under Stalinism for a new, politically useful, interpretation o f and wonder lives, then history lives . history led in 1934—6 to a series of Party decisions about the teaching o f S . S. Averintsev history, and inspired the "comments" by Stalin, Kirov and Zhdanov on a . The result was the Short Course in th e Wizen talking of history, we do no t new textbook history of the USSR History of the Communist Party, 1918, which formed the new basis of Sovie t wish to exalt or debase individuals , . -
Perestroika the Demise of the Communist World?
Introduction Perestroika The Demise of the Communist World? Francesco Di Palma With the rise to power of Mikhail Gorbachev as general secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in March 1985, a range of exten- sive reforms were initiated under the headings of glasnost (openness) and perestroika (restructuring). Among other objectives, they sought to make the regime less bureaucratic, to tackle increasing financial woes and to reduce foreign trade imbalances. Given the leading role that Soviet Russia played in bi- and multilateral relations between communist par- ties on both sides of the Iron Curtain, however, these reforms had impor- tant effects not only in the USSR. This book examines both the encounter with Gorbachev’s policies by select European communist parties and the historical actors who helped to guide those policies’ reception and implementation—topics that the historical literature has hitherto failed to analyze systematically.1 It is concerned with the parties’ responses in two respects: firstly, with regard to their mutual political, cultural, and not least financial connections; and secondly, within the context of their bilateral relationships to the hegemonic CPSU. While the “export”2 of Perestroika has been widely acknowledged and extensively described, historians have rarely broached the topic of the independent reformist policies among communist parties that emerged in the 1970s, nor whether and to what extent Gorbachev and his aides may have drawn upon already existing doctrines to buttress their restruc- turing.3 Moving beyond the impact of Perestroika on the Soviet Union and its foreign policy (e.g., the abandonment of the Brezhnev Doctrine), Notes for this chapter begin on page 17. -
Ukraine – Russia: Relationships 2014 – Present
Ukraine – Russia: Relationships 2014 – present Simulation of Negotiations: Ukraine-Russia-European Union Relations Dr. Vitalijs Butenko Dr. Sibylle Zürcher NECOM | 07.03.2017 | 1 1. Introduction NECOM | 07.03.2017 | 2 Ukraine Situation as of 2013: - Form of government: Semi-presidential republic - Administrative units: - 24 regions (“oblast”) - 2 cities of republican subordination (Kiev and Sevastopol) - Autonomous Republic of Crimea - Population*: - 48.4 m (2001 census) - 42.5 m (2016 estimate) - GDP (current prices)*: - $179.5 b (2013) - $87.2 b (2016 estimate) - Security: - 250’000 army personnel0 - Following Budapest agreement in 1994 the nuclear arsenal is removed to Russia in exchange for assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine and admission to Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT). NECOM | 07.03.2017 | 3 * Note from IMF: 2013 data excludes Crimea and Sevastopol for comparison purposes with 2014 data. 2. Background on the crisis in Ukraine 5. Sept. 2014: Minsk protocol, Convoy cease fire Nov 2013 – Sept 2014 Odessa Dec 2014-Feb Conflict intensity 2015: Debaltseve “Pocket” War Mar. 2014: MH17 Civil war erupts in Luhansk and Donetsk regions 12. Sept. 2014: Ratification of the Mar. 2014: UKR-EU association US and EU agreement Crisis sanctions 21 Feb. 2014: Mar. 2014: Crisis settlement deal Incorporation of Crimea by Russia 22-23 Feb. 2014: Yanukovitch leaves Ukraine; Maidan leaders take over Open the government conflict 26. Sept. 2014 Another gas- Nov. 2013: UKR: repays $3.1 bn price crisis Euromaidan debt in steps UKR-RUS, EU begins RUS: Resumes as mediator supply at price $385 per 1,000 m2 Unstable peace StableNov. -
To View the Report
Human Rights Without Frontiers Int’l Avenue d’Auderghem 61/16, 1040 Brussels Phone/Fax: 32 2 3456145 Email: [email protected] – Website : http://www.hrwf.eu The Donetsk People’s Republic and some EU blacklisted leaders Who is who ? By Willy Fautré April 2015 The self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) and Luhansk People’s Republic (LPR) were formed on 11 May 2014 on the territory of Donbass (Donetsk and Luhansk regions in Ukraine’s southeastern industrial area) after referendums that were not recognized by the Ukrainian government and the international community. In response, Kiev started a military operation. The first Minsk Peace Agreement signed on 5 September provided that the warring parties would agree . to pull heavy weaponry 15 km by each side from the line of contact, creating a 30 km security zone . to ban offensive operations . to ban flights by combat aircraft over the security zone . to set up an OSCE monitoring mission . to withdraw all foreign mercenaries from the conflict zone but this did not stop the war and further territorial expansion of the separatists. In September 2014, the self-proclaimed republics unilaterally adopted laws on elections of the republics’ heads and deputies of people’s councils despite the opposition of the central government in Kyiv. On the whole, 2.2 million people live in the Luhansk Region, and 4.3 million people reside in the Donetsk Region. The share of Russians in the population reaches 39-40% Both territories are centers of the coal, metallurgical and mechanical engineering industries. Some EU-sanctioned separatist leaders and figures The first DPR political leader was Alexander Borodai, a Russian citizen, from Moscow.