Ceasefire or no ceasefire? Slovakia’s response to the Minsk agreement.

Kristina Cimova comments on the futility of the Minsk ceasefire agreement. Military operations taking place on Slovak territory in support of Ukraine testify to the nominal nature of the conflict’s resolution

It is an increasingly tall order for a country neighbouring Ukraine to remain impartial to the situation at hand. The conflict is portrayed through both Western and local media outlets, which point to an augmentation of NATO military activity on the territory of the Slovak Republic and within neighbouring states, found in the proximity of Ukraine and Russia.

The former NATO leader, Anders Rasmussen, was quoted on the Slovak on-line portal HNonline.sk in February this year; Rasmussen claimed the following: for Putin, the conflict no longer concerns Ukraine and its territory. The great finale is to see the Kremlin re-established in its position as the world’s superpower. Rasmussen further warned against Putin’s potential attack on the Baltic States, undertaken as a testing exercise in response to Article 5 of the Treaty of NATO (only implemented once so far, following 9/11).

In response, Lithuania renewed its policy of conscription and NATO requested additional control points in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania as well as Poland, Bulgaria and Romania. Considering the negotiations of a ceasefire in Minsk this February, the official announcement made by the Slovak Republic appears futile from the outset. Nonetheless, given that Slovakia is a country within immediate proximity to the Ukrainian conflict, its decision to implement training schemes for dozens of Ukrainian combat engineers should be read as a powerful political statement.

This is far from forming the sole policy implementation stemming from the NATO summit in Wales and from a pledge of support to Ukraine. Slovakia’s government gave permission to official NATO military trainings to be carried out in the near vicinity of the Slovak-Ukrainian border. This is not a matter of coincidence. The Slovak government is adamant on the necessary timing of these training sessions, given their intrinsic link to the on-going conflict – despite the seemingly calm horizon, under the pretence of a purported ceasefire.

The numbers speak for themselves. Throughout February, over a hundred American soldiers of the Special Forces have been conducting training sessions in the cities of Žilina, Kamenica nad Cirochou and Lešť. An extra five hundred were due to arrive on March 15th. Apart from the American soldiers, there are also soldiers from the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary and Austria training alongside Slovak forces. This conspicuous, bordering on blatant, growing military presence of NATO is counter-acted through Russia’s response to increase training and organisation of aviation close to Finland’s borders.

Importantly, what do the Slovaks make of this increase in military activity? The majority seems discontented. Last week, a protest numbering approximately 400 citizens took place in the capital, Bratislava, demonstratively in front of the American embassy. Signs read: ‘We don’t want NATO, we want peace’, ‘No to the new control posts’ and ‘NATO separates all Slavic nations’. Citizens living in nearby towns to the location of the training further complain about the constant noise made by heavy artillery and the ‘Black Hawks’ commotion on a daily basis.

Whether such measures are truly justified is a separate matter of discussion. President Poroshenko discussed the possibility of resorting to martial law, in the event that the Minsk negotiations would fail. Ukraine’s military spokesman, Andrij Lysenko, also reported increased activity of heavy artillery of the separatists between the cities of Artemivsk and Debaltseve on the eve of the ceasefire negotiations.

On March 10th, the situation sees great similarity to reports sent by separatists, who were transporting heavy artillery and building ammunition warehouses in Donetsk. Weeks after the ceasefire is nominally in operation, reports from the region still point to 17 cases of military troops held under fire by Ukrainian troops over a period of 24 hours. This in itself constitutes a commentary on the efficiency of the ceasefire. From the viewpoint of those closest to the conflict, as gathered from local sources who hold no pre-established agenda of guilt-tripping the parties involved, it becomes clear that the ceasefire’s operation is relative, at best.

Kristina Cimova



3 thoughts on “Ceasefire or no ceasefire? Slovakia’s response to the Minsk agreement.

  1. the Slovaks seem to be discontented -> ilustration: the protests numbering 400 people. An interestingly written article based on quite a big bias, I must say. The future consequences of the Slovak NATO membership were about to be assessed by the Slovak voters in 1998 and 2002 elections. Every decision has it consequences, and the maturity of each person is measured by acceptance of the consequences of her/his own decisions. The decision of the electorate in 1998 and 2002 was to support the candidates who proclaimed the intention to enter the EU. The external condition was to enter NATO simultanously. Apparently, this price of the Slovak EU membership was acceptable for most of the voters. Now this majority should accept that clashes between the identity and real political commitments are reality. Unfortunately, the Central European states (nations) are not free to decide according to their nations’ identities, they have to follow their international commitments. The democratically elected governments are responsible for implementing the international obligations and they do that. The main question that arises following reading this article is – and, what do the Slovaks make of the potential refusal to take part in this increase in military activity? Or, maybe more precisely: is it(from the medium- and long-term perspective) more convenient for Slovakia to accept the intensification of military activity on its territory or is it better to refuse to take part in any such activity? This implicitly means that the country would search for solution of this dilemma potentially outside the field of legality (which is already quite a strong point). On the other hand, such a way of understanding the “politics” and political decisions of (say) Central European states would broaden their options by purifying the area of potential solutions to the above mentioned dilemma from ANY kind of ideologies. This is what the article DOES NOT offer and why I claim it is NOT independent and striped of any ideology. But at leas offers the impetus for thinking out of box (made of more-or-less unilaterally created world order based on current international agreements, conventions atc.).


    • I am sorry but as far as I remember it the choice to go to EU was made by democratic referendum. The choice to go to NATO was made by elected members, after the election without any participation of Slovak people. So what external condition are you talking about? Or do you have some nice inside info?


  2. Thank you for your comments. I think that while I am aware of the process of how Slovakia entered the EU and NATO (and yes this was very much a two-in-one deal, take it or leave it) the perspective of the article was not meant to be necessarily aimed at trying to determine what activity Slovakia should or should not be taking part in with regards to increased military activity because given the aforementioned commitments of the country it would be impossible to say no without serious repercussions for the entire country and its security. This was information taken from many other independent sources pieced together to merely reflect the increased activity that is happening and what kind of light that sheds on the efficiency of the ceasefire negotiated in Minsk. The intention was not to try offer solutions of how to battle ideologies and one could argue that such a mission is bordering on impossible anyway in a world that is saturated with them. On an separate note, I happen to think that in a democracy it is the prerogative of the nation to speak up about anything that it feels strongly about and given the size of Slovakia (and the tiny square outside of the embassy in Bratislava) I think that 400 people demonstrating is not a number that should be overlooked- or any number for that matter.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s