How Putin’s Ukrainian Dream Turned Into a Nightmare,” by Adrian Karatnycky and Alexander J. Motyl, Foreign Policy, October 20 (http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/20/how-putins-ukrainian-dream-turned-into-a-nightmare/):
…The Kremlin’s war in Ukraine is turning into a quagmire. Militarily, it is a stalemate – which, given the vast imbalance between Russian and Ukrainian capabilities, amounts to a Ukrainian victory. Ideologically, the war is a bust, as the Kremlin’s hopes of converting southeastern Ukraine into “New Russia” have been effectively, and perhaps permanently, shattered. Economically, the war and occupation of both Crimea and the Donbas have imposed ruinous costs on Russia…
The West should pursue two aims. First, it should keep Ukraine sovereign and stable and promote its reform process — which is exactly what the West has been and is doing anyway. Second, the West should maintain strong sanctions on Russia until all its forces and heavy weapons are withdrawn from occupied Ukrainian territory.
Just as importantly, the United States and Europe should clearly and unequivocally label Russia the occupying power in the Donbas and press Russia to provide adequate socioeconomic assistance to the 3 million Ukrainian citizens under its control. At the same time, the leaders in Kiev [sic] must make clear to its citizens in the Donbas that they will be ready to help them, but if and only if the Russian occupation ends. …
Western policy also should refrain from pressuring Ukraine to absorb the economic burden for rebuilding the Donbas, even if Russia withdraws all its forces, weapons, and bases. The costs must be shared among Russia, which caused most of the destruction, Ukraine, the victim of Russia’s aggression, and the international community. …
“Ukraine Can Beat Its Political Corruption,” by Anders Aslund, New Atlanticist blog, Atlantic Council, October 19 (http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/ukraine-can-beat-its-political-corruption):
Ukraine’s politics suffer from a vicious circle of corruption. Its elections are extremely expensive. Large amounts of gray and black funds are needed to finance them. Criminals, called gray cardinals, handle this black financing, extracted from the state treasury and state companies. To corrupt all, the gray cardinals and their political allies insist on tiny official salaries of ministers, parliamentarians, and civil servants to force them to rely on black incomes to survive. … This vicious circle can and must be broken, by attacking each element in the chain.
To begin with, the salaries of ministers, their deputies, heads of departments, and parliamentarians should be raised dramatically from the current cap of $230 a month to at least ten times more. …
Second, Ukraine’s elections are extraordinarily expensive. …Fortunately, on October 8 the Rada adopted a law on public financing of political parties that limits the amount private individuals and enterprises are allowed to give to parties. Ceilings or prohibitions against expensive political propaganda, such as television ads, are also needed, as is usually the case in Europe. …
The third step would be to block the financial streams from the state to the black cardinals. One flow comes straight from the state treasury, the so-called deriban. …Another financial stream derives from state enterprises through corrupt procurement or transfer pricing. …
A fourth measure is to give the ministers the right to appoint all their deputies and heads of departments. …
Finally, the gray cardinals should be taken out of business. …
“Recent Quiet in Ukraine Offers Hope for a Peaceful Resolution,” by Celestine Bohlen, The New York Times, October 19 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/ 10/20/world/europe/recent-quiet-in-ukraine-offers-hope-for-a-peaceful-resolution.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0):
Once Russian warplanes started bombing targets in Syria on September 30, the world’s attention shifted away from Ukraine…
…Fiona Hill, director of the Center on the United States and Europe at the Brookings Institution, based in Washington, prefers to call the [current] lull in fighting a “temporary armistice,” akin to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk signed before the end of World War I by the young Bolshevik government.
“It is a response to circumstances which have not been propitious for Putin,” she said in an interview. Other analysts, both in Russia and in the West, have also concluded that Russia’s aggression in eastern Ukraine is regarded by the Kremlin as a disappointment, if not an outright failure.
The local population did not prove to be as enthusiastic as the Crimeans about either joining Russia or declaring independence; the Ukrainian Army put up a better fight than expected; and despite Moscow’s best efforts, the United States and the European Union have remained united in imposing economic sanctions against Russia. …
“Russia’s gamble in Syria did not prompt its decision to take a step back in Ukraine, but, Ms. Hill said, “it didn’t hurt that Putin had another card to play.”
“He’s hedging his bets,” she said. But, she added, this is not a sign that Russia has abandoned its goals in Ukraine: The country remains fragile, and Moscow’s grip on the Crimean Peninsula seems unshakable, no small factor in Russia’s newly flexed geostrategic reach. …