At the beginning of the war, weoften talked about the fact that Donbass, which was destroyed by the war, would not be scrupulously rebuilt - it would be leveled to the ground for the purpose of extraction of shale gas ...These conversations are nowsilent.Mykhailo, how do you think, is it really possible that Donbass will remain after the war with the scorched earth, where foreign companies will just extract shale gas? Are there any real reasons for these conversations? Thank you.
These are the myths of Russian propaganda. The Donbas was destroyed not by the shale gas, but by the "coal barons" of the Donbas, who in recent years have tried to be obedient Kremlin's vassals and who, because of their greediness, have taken hostages the entire population of the region. There are no deposits of shale gas in the Donbass. There is methane in coal seams in the Donbass. It can and must be extracted. Due to itsnon-production, theDonbas paid thousands of lives of miners who were victims of methane explosions in coal mining. Even in Chinese mines, degasation of layers is performed before coal is mined. Therefore, one should not look at the problems of unconventional gas through the "curved mirror" of Russian propaganda. No any foreign company, including those which extract unconventional gas, which run away from Ukraine after the first Russian shots in the Donbass, will not return there for at least ten years, if we imagine that tomorrow there will peace and calm there.
In your opinion, which Donbas scenario is most beneficial today to the Kremlin, how would it want to get out of this story with the Donbass? Or it is still not trying to finish this story?
The favourable Kremlin's scenario is "Donbass as a bleeding wound of Ukraine". Under certain circumstances, the Kremlin can operate in a military way through the DPR and LPR, trying to enforce the political leadership of Ukraine to "peace" in the Donbass under Russian conditions.
How do you think of the idea of deployment peacekeepers in the Donbas; in your opinion, will this help to bring peace to these territories, or will it only "freeze" the conflict for years?
It is a mechanism of "freezing" the conflict, nothing more.
Why is not so much effort made to free Ukrainians from Russian captivity in Ukraine and beyond, as it was in Savchenko's story? Why less publicity, resonance, attention?
Because the authorities do not see a proper PR effect for themselves. And, having got their fingers burnt with Savchenko, the authority became largely indifferent to the fate of the political captives of the Kremlin. Fortunately, foreign policy makers and public figures are increasingly paying attention to this problem and draw attention to the fact that the Ukrainian authorities do not show proper activity on this issue. For example, recently the Association of Relatives of Political Prisoners of the Kremlin received a response from Brussels that the recommendations of this Association to strengthen thesanction regime against Russia (for example, the boycott of the FIFA World Cup 2018, the revision of the policy of purchasing energy resources in Russia, etc. ) are taken into account and some of them are already being implemented.By the way, the European Parliament was the first to name all Ukrainian political prisoners in one of their Crimean resolutions (on October 5, 2017) - there were 44 then. The Verkhovna Rada ofUkraine made such a step only recently, and then in some way a number of people "disappeared" from this list. However, nevertheless, now there is a consolidation of Ukrainian and international efforts on the release of both political captives of the Kremlin and hostages in the Donbass. And for the West, this issue is also one of the stimulators for strengthening thesanction regime against Russia.
