欧安组织,乌克兰和和平进程

A. Zagorskii
{"title":"欧安组织,乌克兰和和平进程","authors":"A. Zagorskii","doi":"10.20542/2307-1494-2022-1-121-132","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"At the beginning of the Ukraine crisis in 2014, the OSCE acted unexpectedly promptly for an organization deeply divided for years. Although the revitalization of its relatively autonomous institutions and mechanisms (that did not require prior consensus) failed to produce uncontested evidence to inform collective decisions, the deployment of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission raised the threshold for resuming violence. The Normandy group (France, Germany, Russia, and Ukraine) became the main platform for generating political solutions. The Trilateral Contact Group (the special representative of the OSCE Chairperson, Russia, and Ukraine) proved instrumental for translating these solutions into practical measures. These activities fueled expectations of consolidation of the peace process in spite of the obstacles faced by the OSCE operations, such as their limited mandate, restrictions to the freedom of movement, and inability to verify the withdrawal of weapons or enforce ceasefire and disengagement agreements. However, the ultimate failure of the Minsk peace process in early 2022 can hardly be attributed to these shortcomings. It was the increasing disagreement between Russia and Ukraine on a number of central issues of the peace process, such as the sequence of steps to implement the agreed measures or the engagement of the separatist regions in talks with Kiev, that undermined political process, adversely affected the OSCE operations, and eroded the fragile consensus. Despite the temporary revitalization of the political process in late 2019 and in 2020, the escalation of the situation around Ukraine in 2021 – early 2022 degenerated into a direct military intervention by Russia and resulted in the termination of all consensus-based OSCE operations in Ukraine.","PeriodicalId":34887,"journal":{"name":"Puti k miru i bezopasnosti","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The OSCE, Ukraine, and peace process\",\"authors\":\"A. Zagorskii\",\"doi\":\"10.20542/2307-1494-2022-1-121-132\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"At the beginning of the Ukraine crisis in 2014, the OSCE acted unexpectedly promptly for an organization deeply divided for years. Although the revitalization of its relatively autonomous institutions and mechanisms (that did not require prior consensus) failed to produce uncontested evidence to inform collective decisions, the deployment of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission raised the threshold for resuming violence. The Normandy group (France, Germany, Russia, and Ukraine) became the main platform for generating political solutions. The Trilateral Contact Group (the special representative of the OSCE Chairperson, Russia, and Ukraine) proved instrumental for translating these solutions into practical measures. These activities fueled expectations of consolidation of the peace process in spite of the obstacles faced by the OSCE operations, such as their limited mandate, restrictions to the freedom of movement, and inability to verify the withdrawal of weapons or enforce ceasefire and disengagement agreements. However, the ultimate failure of the Minsk peace process in early 2022 can hardly be attributed to these shortcomings. It was the increasing disagreement between Russia and Ukraine on a number of central issues of the peace process, such as the sequence of steps to implement the agreed measures or the engagement of the separatist regions in talks with Kiev, that undermined political process, adversely affected the OSCE operations, and eroded the fragile consensus. Despite the temporary revitalization of the political process in late 2019 and in 2020, the escalation of the situation around Ukraine in 2021 – early 2022 degenerated into a direct military intervention by Russia and resulted in the termination of all consensus-based OSCE operations in Ukraine.\",\"PeriodicalId\":34887,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Puti k miru i bezopasnosti\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Puti k miru i bezopasnosti\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.20542/2307-1494-2022-1-121-132\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Puti k miru i bezopasnosti","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20542/2307-1494-2022-1-121-132","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

2014年乌克兰危机爆发之初,欧安组织出人意料地迅速采取了行动,而这个组织多年来一直存在严重分歧。虽然恢复其相对自主的机构和机制(不需要事先协商一致意见)未能产生无可争议的证据,为集体决定提供依据,但欧安组织特别监测团的部署提高了恢复暴力的门槛。诺曼底集团(法国、德国、俄罗斯和乌克兰)成为产生政治解决方案的主要平台。三边联络小组(欧安组织主席、俄罗斯和乌克兰的特别代表)在将这些解决办法转化为实际措施方面发挥了重要作用。尽管欧安组织行动面临种种障碍,例如任务期限有限、行动自由受到限制、无法核查撤出武器或执行停火和脱离接触协定,但这些活动激起了人们对巩固和平进程的期望。然而,2022年初明斯克和平进程的最终失败很难归咎于这些缺点。俄罗斯和乌克兰在和平进程的一些核心问题上的分歧越来越大,例如执行商定措施的步骤顺序或分离主义地区与基辅谈判的接触,这些问题破坏了政治进程,对欧安组织的行动产生了不利影响,并侵蚀了脆弱的共识。尽管政治进程在2019年底和2020年暂时恢复活力,但2021年至2022年初乌克兰周围局势的升级演变为俄罗斯的直接军事干预,导致欧安组织终止了在乌克兰的所有基于共识的行动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The OSCE, Ukraine, and peace process
At the beginning of the Ukraine crisis in 2014, the OSCE acted unexpectedly promptly for an organization deeply divided for years. Although the revitalization of its relatively autonomous institutions and mechanisms (that did not require prior consensus) failed to produce uncontested evidence to inform collective decisions, the deployment of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission raised the threshold for resuming violence. The Normandy group (France, Germany, Russia, and Ukraine) became the main platform for generating political solutions. The Trilateral Contact Group (the special representative of the OSCE Chairperson, Russia, and Ukraine) proved instrumental for translating these solutions into practical measures. These activities fueled expectations of consolidation of the peace process in spite of the obstacles faced by the OSCE operations, such as their limited mandate, restrictions to the freedom of movement, and inability to verify the withdrawal of weapons or enforce ceasefire and disengagement agreements. However, the ultimate failure of the Minsk peace process in early 2022 can hardly be attributed to these shortcomings. It was the increasing disagreement between Russia and Ukraine on a number of central issues of the peace process, such as the sequence of steps to implement the agreed measures or the engagement of the separatist regions in talks with Kiev, that undermined political process, adversely affected the OSCE operations, and eroded the fragile consensus. Despite the temporary revitalization of the political process in late 2019 and in 2020, the escalation of the situation around Ukraine in 2021 – early 2022 degenerated into a direct military intervention by Russia and resulted in the termination of all consensus-based OSCE operations in Ukraine.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊最新文献
The Syria crisis in Turkey’s foreign policy Western military assistance and arms transfers to Ukraine in 2022 – early 2023: key trends Earthquake in Turkey: impact on domestic politics and the May 2023 elections Evolution of the Iran-Israel relations in the context of the Syria crisis The current state of the Kosovo status issue: normalization of relations without conflict resolution?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1