We note with regret that positive developments in the implementation of the Complex of Measures, which were expected after the previous meeting in Minsk, have been completely negated by the Ukrainian party during today’s video conference of the Contact Group, the DPR MFA reports.

“The representative standing in for the head of the Ukrainian delegation refused to support the practice and formalize the obligations of Ukraine on specific actions in the form of protocol decisions and instructions of the Contact Group, having alleged that it was a one-time-only situation.

We remind that at the previous meeting on March 11, it was proposed to introduce a constructive mechanism for formalizing the parties’ obligations in writing. It implies coordinating and approving a protocol featuring a detailed agenda of the meeting, instructions of the Contact Group to the working groups, as well as final decisions, in particular, relevant documents. At the same time, Ukraine represented by the head of the presidential office, Mr. Yermak, and the head of the Ukrainian delegation, Mr. Kuchma, consented to it by signing the protocol decision.

Unfortunately, the OSCE coordinator did not assume a proactive stance to support the approved form of the Contact Group’s work, despite the fact that the OSCE had been provided earlier with the draft documents proposed by the Russian Federation as a mediator and thoroughly elaborated by the Republics. We also received comments from the OSCE, but the only party that did not give any response or reaction was Ukraine. Kiev has thus rejected all the commitments, including on additional measures for monitoring the indefinite truce, which has been in force since July 21, 2019. With that said, we still continue to adhere to it.

The result is that the parties to the Contact Group, having listened to the reports on the work of the specialized groups, were unable to adopt the pre-arranged decisions and formalize the results with their signatures in the protocol of the Contact Group’s meeting. Such a situation occurred because the Ukrainian party had slighted fulfilment of the protocol instructions on the results of the last meeting. They had not worked out even the main issues on the agenda.

To confirm our readiness to fulfil all our obligations, the representatives of the Republics are signing the draft protocol, which they have drawn up and whose approval the Ukrainian party refused to coordinate today. We make it public so that civil society will be able to assess the amount of work that was planned for today’s meeting and which demonstrates how many decisions we have proposed to promote the peacebuilding track. We emphasize that in order to acquire a binding status, a protocol decision must be agreed upon and signed by all parties to the Contact Group.

Over 10 hours of talks have been wasted because of the destructive position of Ukraine’s representatives, who were not ready to coordinate either decisions to support the ceasefire or lists for mutual release of persons, or mechanisms for implementation of political issues.

In this regard, it is obvious that oral statements of the Contact Group, unfortunately, have no practical sense and are of populist nature without a written protocol formalization of results of the work and obligations of the parties.

Alongside the outcome of today’s meeting, we are publishing a draft statement of the Contact Group, which could have been signed by all the parties today.

It should be noted that its signing did not take place, because the Ukrainian party not only refused to sign it, but also proposed to remove the following obligations of the parties:

— approval of obligations of Ukraine and the Republics by April 1, 2020, approval and public declaration of decisions mutually agreed by authorized officials on implementation of the following action list of additional measures for ensuring and enhancing the indefinite ceasefire regime (hereinafter referred to as the ICR) having effect as from July 21, 2019;

— public declaration of ceasefire orders by the high command of the parties;

— prohibition on offensive actions and sabotage-reconnaissance operations;

— non-use of any type of fire, including sniper fire;

— adherence to the practice of direct interaction by means of telephone service in case of ceasefire violation,” the statement reads.