A peace plan for Ukraine presented at the Munich Security Conference has drawn criticism from Ukrainian and American experts and officials for “repeating Kremlin talking points.” The document, initially published on Feb. 14, has since been removed from the conference’s website, but can be found on other sites.
The plan was released by a group of European, American and Russian former government officials and experts called the Euro-Atlantic Security Leadership Group. Three signatories are Ukrainians: former diplomats Oleksandr Chalyi and Vasyl Filipchuk and foreign policy expert Oleksiy Semeniy.
In the statement, the authors define Russia’s war against Ukraine in the Donbas as “the conflict in and around Ukraine.” They suggest the following 12-step plan toward greater security in Ukraine and the Euro-Atlantic region — an approach which focuses on ending the war in the Donbas, but ignores the issue of Russia’s annexation of Crimea.
- Restore the Joint Center for Control and Coordination, a cross-front line military liaison body that includes officers from the Ukrainian and Russian militaries.
- Establish a Normandy Format, military-to-military crisis management dialogue.
- Improve unrestricted access and freedom of movement.
- Address the problem of missing persons.
- Plan for and implement humanitarian de-mining initiatives.
- Advance reconstruction in the Donbas.
- Explore free trade areas.
- Support a roadmap on sanctions, under which progress on the Minsk Agreement could lead to adjustments of sanctions.
- Address hazards from radioactive materials in the Donbas.
- Direct a new dialogue among Euro-Atlantic states about building mutual security.
- Support and define areas of selective engagement between the EU and Russia.
- Launch a new national dialogue about identity.
Ukraine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has rejected the plan.
“The terms in this document do not correspond with the official position of the Ukrainian state,” Kateryna Zelenko, a spokesperson for the ministry, told UkrInform state news agency. “According to the management of the Munich Security Conference, it also does not recognize this statement as the official document of the Conference.”
A group of American experts and diplomats quickly criticized the peace plan, including former U.S. ambassadors William B. Taylor, Marie Yovanovitch, Steven Pifer, John Herbst, Michael McFaul, Alexander Vershbow and diplomat Michael Carpenter.
In a statement published by the Atlantic Council, the critics say that, while some of the 12 recommendations are constructive, several of them are problematic and two “echo Kremlin negotiating proposals or disinformation themes.” They also point out that the document “describes the problem to be resolved in Kremlin-friendly terms.”
“‘The conflict in and around Ukraine’ began when Russian troops, in Russian uniforms but operating without identifying insignias, seized the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea, and Moscow ‘annexed’ it. Moscow then launched its hybrid war in Donbas and used its massive disinformation apparatus to present this as a Ukrainian civil conflict. Without Kremlin leadership, financing, weapons (including heavy arms), ammunition, and – in some cases – regular units of the Russian Army, there would be no ‘conflict in and around Ukraine,'” the critics say.
In particular, the American experts criticize step 8 for following “the Kremlin-friendly idea of partial sanctions easing for partial implementation of the Minsk Agreement.” They say that the most critical element of the Agreements is a real ceasefire, which “could happen tomorrow if Moscow so instructed its officers and proxies in the Donbas.”
Step 12 on launching a new national dialogue about identity is a “dubious meddle in Ukraine’s internal affairs,” American experts say.
“This reflects Moscow’s meme about a divided Ukraine that led to the ‘civil war’ in the Donbas,” their statement says. “Invitation to Russia to help define Ukraine is astonishing in its disrespect for the nation Russia has invaded. Poland has been Ukraine’s friend and Hungary has not, but Ukraine should not be asked to negotiate its identity with anyone.”
Petro Poroshenko, the former Ukrainian president and leader of the European Solidarity party, also criticized the document, calling it “the Kremlin’s plan” of “peace on Russian terms.”
“For Ukraine, such a plan is a capitulation, something that can’t be crossed. There are red lines. This is a plan to bring Russia out from under sanctions. This is a plan for handing Russia the key to Ukraine and NATO. Under this plan, we are the ones who should ask for permission. Moreover, they went further and said that the issue of the self-identification of Ukrainians should be decided by Russia,” Poroshenko told Ukrainian media.
The current Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has not mentioned the controversial peace plan in his public statements at the conference.
The Munich Security Conference is an international debate platform that annually gathers experts and political leaders from around the world. It was founded in 1963 as a forum for NATO member countries. The conference traditionally takes place at the Bayerischer Hof Hotel in Munich, Germany.
This is not the first controversy over a peace plan proposed by former diplomats and think tank experts to resolve the war that Russia started against Ukraine in 2014. That same year, the Boisto 24-Step Plan conceived by Russian and American experts drew criticism for allegedly failing to recognize Russia as an aggressor, ignoring the Russian invasion of Crimea, trying to meddle in Ukrainian internal affairs and limiting the country’s self-determination as a sovereign nation.
