The future of Ukraine may soon decide at an international summit. But the plan to allow direct talks between Moscow and Kiev, the high risks involved.

The idea was born in Berlin: With international accompaniment Russians and Ukrainians to engage in conversation with each other. The plan, the Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier anschob over four weeks ago, and track the Moscow and Washington now on, sounds reasonable.

Talking is always better than shooting and Occupy.

But the situation in which such a meeting would take place has changed dramatically in the past few days. In the eastern Ukraine, the scenario seems to be repeating that led to the secession of Crimea. Armed, allegedly Russian civilians that look amazingly well trained, occupying buildings, threaten secession, creating in Donetsk and Kharkov a climate of uncertainty.

The implementation of the Western plan an international conference, contact group, forum or whatever the construct is called, carries many uncertainties in itself. For the leadership in Kiev it almost seems unacceptable to talk to Moscow, when parts of its territory is already annexed (such as the Crimea) or are at stake (such as the Eastern Ukraine).

Ukraine Conference:Who serves a constitutional reform?

Likely to be spoken on such a meeting using the contours of a new Constitution of Ukraine. A greater consideration of the Russian minority in the country is undoubtedly true, and a step that could hold the country together. But the lofty idea needs a reliable players – and whether sitting in Moscow, is questionable.

The previous policy of Russian President Vladimir Putin does not give the impression as if it were only to legal corrections in state-building, for the benefit of the Russian minority. The suspicion is that a federal Ukraine it is intended to extract the regions of the East one day and to integrate their own federation. A real constitutional reform must be so strong that the cohesion of the country is not called into question at the first opportunity.

Ukraine Conference:Warning of Yalta

Still, there is the chance to come with international assistance to a solution that is acceptable to all sides. Maybe Ukraine is the status of a federal, neutral country received – after the model of Austria, in 1955 this state took over the post-war creation of the Republic and after the end of the Allied occupation of pressure from Moscow. Or is it the way of Finland after the Second World War – with special consideration taken against Moscow. Both states are thus not too badly.

Only one thing must not happen: The West should not Ukraine with pressure force to the greatest possible flexibility in the negotiations. So one might superficially create peace in the east of the EU. But how long this peace will remain?

There are cautionary examples of the West. Americans and the British gave way to the Yalta Conference in 1945 with the wishes of the Soviet Union after the dominion over virtually all of eastern Europe . In the former meeting of the Big Three – Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill – free elections were cynically assured , though , the Red Army was already there in the countries of the East and the West was clear that the development would have been very different .
There were overturned decisions , without the person concerned have been asked . Soon after the end of World War II , these countries were converted into Communist ” people’s democracies ” . The populations of the East out in the cold – until the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989 / 90th

A solution of the current ” big three ” – Russia , USA and EU – at the expense of Ukraine’s future should not be allowed . This will Steinmeier , Kerry and Co. know . If it came to Moscow had with his policy ultimately prevailed . With international approval.

[adrotate group=”10″]