This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/31/world/europe/kerry-and-russian-counterpart-meet-on-ukraine-crisis.html

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
Kerry and Russian Counterpart Meet on Ukraine Crisis Promises of Diplomacy but No Advances in Ukraine Talks
(about 7 hours later)
PARIS — As Secretary of State John Kerry began his meeting here with his Russian counterpart on Sunday evening to seek a political solution to the tense standoff over Ukraine, the federalization of the country was likely to be at the core of the discussion. PARIS — Secretary of State John Kerry and his Russian counterpart agreed on Sunday that a political solution was needed for Ukraine and said they planned to continue discussing ways to de-escalate the crisis over the country’s future and Russia’s recent annexation of Crimea. But neither side claimed a breakthrough, and Russia did not commit to pulling back the more than 40,000 troops the United States says are massed near Ukraine’s border.
Even as Russia has massed as many as 50,000 troops near its border with Ukraine, its foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, has asserted that the Kremlin’s first priority is a diplomatic solution that would involve constitutional reforms in Ukraine. “Both of us recognize the importance of finding a diplomatic solution and simultaneously meeting the needs of the Ukrainian people, and that we agreed on tonight,” Mr. Kerry told reporters after meeting with the Russian foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov.
And both Russian and American officials have telegraphed their support for constitutional changes that would safeguard the rights of the Russian-speaking population in eastern Ukraine. In a separate news conference, Mr. Lavrov said he and Mr. Kerry had agreed to work on securing the rights of minorities and “linguistic rights” in Ukraine, which has a large ethnic Russian population. The treatment of ethnic Russians is considered key because Western officials have worried that it might serve as a rationale for military intervention in eastern Ukraine, where many Russian speakers live.
But while the two sides are using the same terminology, experts caution that it appears to mask divergent visions over the future of Ukraine and its degree of independence from Moscow. American officials said Mr. Kerry’s strategy in the four-hour meeting was to make the case that Ukrainian officials were already taking steps to address Russia’s core concerns, which include the rights of the Russian-speaking population, the demobilization of militias and constitutional reforms. There appeared to be some acknowledgment of this on the Russia side, they said
Is the aim of a new federal system to empower local officials and give provinces that are largely made up of Russian speakers more of a say over taxation and other regional affairs, as American officials suggest? Mr. Kerry said he had outlined some ideas for Russian President Vladimir V. Putin to consider that might lead to a reduction of the Russian forces near Ukraine. But it was far from clear how Mr. Putin might respond, or what he might demand in return.
Or is the goal to establish largely autonomous regions that would be under the influence of Moscow and that would hold a veto over national matters like those involving foreign policy issues, the outcome that Western officials say President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia appears to have in mind? Nor was there headway in resolving differences over Crimea, the Ukrainian peninsula that Russia took over despite vigorous protests from Ukraine and Western nations.
“Ukraine’s government structure has always been overly centralized in Kiev,” said Steven Pifer, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who served as the United States ambassador in Ukraine from 1998 to 2000. Mr. Kerry and Mr. Lavrov have not set a date to meet again.
Mr. Kerry’s meeting with his Russian counterpart was arranged after Mr. Putin called President Obama on Friday to discuss the latest American proposal to resolve the crisis. For the Americans, even a hint of progress might provide the time to search for a political solution. For the Russians, the appearance of flexibility could aid their effort to stop the West from imposing tougher sanctions and to discourage NATO’s interest in taking more resolute steps in the wake of the Crimean invasion.
NATO foreign ministers are to meet Tuesday and Wednesday to decide how to bolster the alliance’s military posture, reassure Eastern European members and assist Ukraine. In a sign of continuing tensions, the Pentagon said Sunday that Gen. Philip M. Breedlove, NATO’s top commander and head of the American military’s European Command, had been sent back early to Europe from Washington.
Before Sunday’s meeting, both Russian and American officials telegraphed their support for constitutional changes in Ukraine that would safeguard the rights of the Russian-speaking population. But while the two sides have used the same terminology, experts cautioned that it seemed to mask divergent visions over Ukraine’s degree of independence from Moscow.
Is the aim of a new federal system to empower local officials and give provinces largely composed of Russian speakers more say over taxation and other regional affairs, as American officials who have consulted with Ukrainian leaders suggest? Or is the goal to establish largely autonomous regions that would be under the influence of Moscow and that would hold a veto over national matters like those involving foreign policy, an outcome Western officials say Mr. Putin appears to have in mind?
“Ukraine’s government structure has always been overly centralized in Kiev,” said Steven Pifer, the United States ambassador in Ukraine from 1998 to 2000.
“The president, for example, appoints provincial governors,” Mr. Pifer added. “Some diffusion of power from Kiev to provincial capitals to deal with regional issues would likely promote more efficient, effective and accountable governance. But we should be leery of the Russian position. Moscow does not care about more efficient governance; it wants to create opportunities to meddle in Ukraine’s internal politics.”“The president, for example, appoints provincial governors,” Mr. Pifer added. “Some diffusion of power from Kiev to provincial capitals to deal with regional issues would likely promote more efficient, effective and accountable governance. But we should be leery of the Russian position. Moscow does not care about more efficient governance; it wants to create opportunities to meddle in Ukraine’s internal politics.”
Mr. Kerry’s meeting with his Russian counterpart, which was held at the residence of the Russian ambassador here, was arranged after Mr. Putin called President Obama on Friday to discuss the latest American proposal to resolve the crisis. According to the Russian plan put forward this month, regions run by elected governors would have “wide powers” to set economic policy and establish “economic and cultural ties with neighboring countries,” Mr. Lavrov said in an interview on Russian television before the meeting with Mr. Kerry.
Both sides appeared eager to meet quickly. With Russia building up its forces on Ukraine’s border, NATO foreign ministers are to meet Tuesday and Wednesday to decide how to bolster the alliance’s military posture, reassure East European members and assist Ukraine, whose dilapidated military is no match for the Russians’. Mr. Lavrov on Sunday also denied the widespread accusation that Russia wanted to use a federal form of government to carve up the country, saying it was “only an agreement to respect each region, its traditions, its customs, its culture and its language only this will secure the unity and stability of the Ukrainian state.”
For the Americans, even a hint of progress might provide the space and time to search for a political solution. The appearance of flexibility could also aid Russia’s effort to dispel Western interest in imposing tougher economic sanctions over Moscow’s annexation of Crimea and discourage NATO’s interest in taking more resolute steps. Russian would be made an official language, along with Ukrainian, under the Russian plan. And Ukraine’s Constitution, Mr. Lavrov added, would formally ensure that the country could never “be part of any bloc” like NATO.
The deeper question is whether the two sides can come to terms on fundamental issues concerning Ukraine’s political future. Before the meeting in Paris began, Obama administration officials were playing down the notion of an imminent breakthrough. American officials said the document they provided to Mr. Lavrov as a response, prepared in consultation with Ukraine’s new interim government, called for direct talks between Ukrainian and Russian officials, the disarmament of local militias some of which are supported by Moscow and a commitment by Russia to de-escalate the conflict.
Earlier this month, it appeared that Mr. Kerry’s diplomacy with his Russian counterpart had already run its course. Mr. Kerry said that federalization remained an issue, foremost, for the Ukrainians to consider and that he and Mr. Lavrov did not discuss it extensively on Sunday. The Russians, however, have refused to negotiate with the Ukrainian government, which they consider illegitimate.
On March 8, Mr. Kerry warned Mr. Lavrov in a phone call that a decision by Russia to annex Crimea and to continue its military escalation would “close any available space for diplomacy,” a senior State Department official told reporters. After Mr. Lavrov’s televised statements, Ukraine’s government issued a terse response, saying his comments had the “tone of an ultimatum” and urging Russia to worry about treatment of its own “national minorities, including Ukrainians.”
Yet, after Russia formally annexed Crimea in mid-March, the two sides kept talking. With unease in Western Europe about the cost of imposing economic sanctions and anxiety over Russian muscle-flexing near Ukraine’s border, the Obama administration appeared to be looking for the same “off ramp” from the crisis that it had been offering the Kremlin.
In recent weeks, the two sides have exchanged proposals and counterproposals. On March 10, the Russians presented their plan for “comprehensive constitutional reform” in Ukraine.
According to the plan, Ukraine’s political system would be federalized. Governors would be elected, not appointed, Mr. Lavrov said in a recent interview on Russian television. And the regions they governed, he added, would have “wide powers” to set economic policy, organize education and establish “economic and cultural ties with neighboring countries,” like Russia.
Russia would be made an official language, along with Ukrainian, under the Russian plan. And Ukraine’s Constitution, Mr. Lavrov added, would formally ensure that the country could never “be part of any bloc” like NATO.
The Obama administration delivered its response on Monday when Mr. Kerry met with Mr. Lavrov on the margins of the nuclear summit meeting in The Hague.
American officials said that the document they provided to Mr. Lavrov was prepared in consultation with Ukraine’s new interim government. It is not a blueprint as much as a series of questions and answers that is being passed back and forth between the sides.
The American proposal calls for direct talks between Ukrainian and Russian officials, the disarmament of local militias — some of which are supported by Moscow — the deployment of international monitors and a commitment by Russian to “de-escalate” the conflict. American officials are also open to some degree of federalization if it is supported by the Ukrainian side.
Mr. Putin took the next diplomatic step when he called Mr. Obama on Friday, and the two leaders agreed that Mr. Lavrov and Mr. Kerry should meet again. Mr. Kerry consulted with Ukrainian officials before the meeting on Sunday and planned to coordinate a response if the Russian side presented a new proposal, American officials said.
While Ukrainian officials are open to discussing providing the country’s regions with a measure of autonomy on taxation, the Russians are pressing regional veto power, American official said.
Ukrainian politicians have reacted skeptically to the Russian version of federalization. Petro O. Poroshenko, the industrialist who is one of the leading Ukrainian candidates for president, said recently that the idea amounted to “somebody in the Russian government trying to tell us what type of governmental system we should have.”
The degree of federalization, however, is just one thorny issue between the sides. Russia has rebuffed the suggestion for direct talks with the interim Ukrainian government.