• Research
  • Politika
  • About
Carnegie Russia Eurasia center logoCarnegie lettermark logo
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Andrew S. Weiss"
  ],
  "type": "commentary",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "",
  "programs": [],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "Eastern Europe",
    "Ukraine"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Political Reform"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

Commentary

Don’t Call It a Comeback

Leonid Kuchma deserves credit for stepping forward at a moment of national peril. A realist and truth-teller of Kuchma’s calibre is a strikingly rare commodity in Kyiv and the West these days.

Link Copied
By Andrew S. Weiss
Published on Sep 22, 2014

Not surprisingly, recent Ukrainian-Russian negotiations under OSCE auspices in Minsk have touched off a political firestorm in Kyiv. Petro Poroshenko will presumably spend much of his time on the campaign trail on the defensive, explaining why the September 5 cease-fire agreement and other steps that conceivably could lead to a frozen conflict in parts of Donetsk and Luhansk were the best deal that Kyiv could get after a series of dramatic setbacks on the battlefield. And like any properly messy Ukrainian compromise, this one involved a little funny business—specifically, a scandalous secret vote in the Rada last week on the granting of special status to Donetsk and Luhansk that relied on well-established techniques of backroom politicking and anti-democratic manipulations of parliamentary procedures.

Poroshenko’s lead negotiator at the talks, former President Leonid Kuchma, must feel right at home. Kuchma has engineered a remarkable comeback during the crisis.  He has reinvented himself as a statesman capable of standing above day-to-day politics and cutting unpalatable deals with the Kremlin on Poroshenko’s behalf. The two agreements signed by Kuchma in Minsk undoubtedly will provide plenty of ammunition to Poroshenko’s (and Kuchma’s) critics.

For the past two weeks the September 5 cease-fire agreement has been honored only sporadically. This weekend’s agreement on implementation measures will probably be no different. Specific provisions on the removal of foreign forces and mercenaries and creation of a wider buffer zone between the combatants will require considerable Russian good will and concrete steps to deescalate, neither of which has been much in evidence in the current environment. Securing the Ukrainian-Russian border and removing certain weapons systems such as long-range artillery from the conflict zone will be exceedingly difficult amid confusing conditions in the conflict zone and the absence of a credible monitoring mission.

Still, Kuchma deserves credit for stepping forward at a moment of national peril. His public statements about the crisis have been generally constructive and thoughtful. At the Yalta European Strategy annual meeting in mid-September, Kuchma called for a UN force to monitor the Ukrainian-Russian border, which makes eminent sense given the lack of OSCE capabilities.  It must be exceedingly frustrating for Kuchma and other Ukrainian officials to see key Western governments pushing the beleaguered and ineffectual OSCE as the main mechanism for implementing the cease-fire. As we know from the Balkans and other conflict zones, peacekeeping on the cheap is usually a formula for resumed bloodshed and avoidable civilian suffering.

As his scandal-laden reputation attests, Kuchma may be many things, but he is no fool. In a candid interview with RFE/RL in mid-April, Kuchma wisely warned not to expect the West to make big sacrifices on Ukraine’s behalf in the face of Russian aggression. According to Kuchma, “there are dozens of examples in the world in which, at the beginning, everyone makes noise about but then Americans don't want to get involved and most importantly they don't want to waste their money.”

Kuchma surely knows what he’s talking about. After all, he was the Ukrainian signatory of the 1994 Budapest memorandum and witnessed the limitations of the security assurances first-hand. In his memoirs, After the Maidan: the President’s Writings, Kuchma described how Western powers overruled his request to invoke the agreement’s consultative mechanism after Ukraine’s security was threatened during a 2003 Russian-Ukrainian territorial dispute over Tuzla Island.

A realist and truth-teller of Kuchma’s calibre is a strikingly rare commodity in Kyiv and the West these days.

About the Author

Andrew S. Weiss

James Family Chair, Vice President for Studies

Andrew S. Weiss is the James Family Chair and vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, where he oversees research on Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia. His graphic novel biography of Vladimir Putin, Accidental Czar: the Life and Lies of Vladimir Putin, was published by First Second/Macmillan in 2022.

    Recent Work

  • Research
    Russia in Africa: Examining Moscow’s Influence and Its Limits
      • Nate Reynolds
      • +11

      Frances Z. Brown, Nate Reynolds, Priyal Singh, …

  • Other
    Unpacking Trump’s National Security Strategy
      • Saskia Brechenmacher
      • Cecily Brewer
      • +18

      James M. Acton, Saskia Brechenmacher, Cecily Brewer, …

Andrew S. Weiss
James Family Chair, Vice President for Studies
Andrew S. Weiss
Political ReformEastern EuropeUkraine

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Control Above Reform: What’s Behind Ukraine’s Government and Security Reshuffle?

    Ultimately, Zelensky sided neither with the reform camp nor with the military establishment as such, but with political control.

      Balázs Jarábik

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Where Are President Tokayev’s Political Reforms Leading Kazakhstan?

    Tokayev’s predecessor, Nursultan Nazarbayev, outlined arrangements for a power transition too soon and in too much detail, ultimately losing control over the process. Tokayev is determined not to meet the same fate.

      Temur Umarov

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Parliamentary Elections in Occupied Ukraine Risk Backfiring for the Kremlin

    Despite unhappiness on the ground, Moscow is determined to use both carrot and stick to ensure there is record support for United Russia in occupied Ukraine.

      Konstantin Skorkin

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Moldova’s Ruling Party PAS Must Graduate From Crisis Management to State Governance

    Whether PAS can refocus on the unfinished business of state-building may ultimately prove more consequential for Moldova’s European future than the pace of its accession negotiations.

      Balázs Jarábik

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Snubbed by United Russia as Elections Loom, Medvedev Looks Condemned to Eternal Obscurity

    Medvedev’s defeat in the battle for the position of speaker appears to signal that the long process of his marginalization in Russian politics has passed the point of no return.

      Andrey Pertsev

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
Carnegie Russia Eurasia logo, white
  • Research
  • Politika
  • About
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.