In a joint statement issued following the talks, said that Russia and the United States differ in the concept of peace in the Donbass, but the parties intend to perform a regular meeting and "to consider further ways of solving this problem".
The Agency TASS with reference to Surkov added that the U.S. gave Russia the American additions to the project of deployment of peacekeepers in Ukraine. According to Surkov, these additions consisted of 29 paragraphs, however, only three of them to the Russian side seemed acceptable.
Surkov and Walker had met on August 21 in Minsk, and on October 7 in Belgrade. In early November, the special representative of the United States has offered Ukraine not to introduce a competing resolution on the UN peacekeeping mission in the Donbass in response to a similar Russian initiative and try to reach agreement on the basic principles on which to base the resolution. In response, the Minister of foreign Affairs of Ukraine Pavlo Klimkin said that the Ukrainian text of the resolution on UN peacekeepers in the Donbass is actually ready.
Russian service Bi-bi-si decided to understand the basic contradictions that do not allow the parties to agree.
What are the differences of the parties on the introduction of peacekeepers?
First about the possible introduction of UN peacekeepers in the Donbass, said Kiev. It happened in early 2015, after the loss of Ukraine's control over strategic transport hub of debaltseve. Intense fighting for the city continued after the signing of the "second Minsk agreement": already in Kiev, said that these agreements are unlikely to work, and in the East of Ukraine need a more effective guarantor of peace.
Anyway, in March 2015 Kiev appealed to the UN and the EU with a request to consider the introduction of Donbass peacekeepers and to send to the region an assessment mission to determine its parameters. However, by the initiative of Ukraine reacted without enthusiasm and in Moscow, and in the organizations in which Kiev has appealed.
Although the theme of the introduction in the Donbass peacekeeping or police mission regularly raised the Ukrainian leaders in the public rhetoric, a new sound, this idea was only in September 2017, when in favor of sending peacekeepers to Eastern Ukraine suddenly called Vladimir Putin.
But even after this breakthrough in addressing the question of whether there will be in the conflict zone "blue helmets", has not occurred, and the Ukrainian foreign Ministry called Putin's statement "another attempt of Russia as parties to the conflict to submit to the aggression of domestic conflict". This once again proved that vision, Kiev and Moscow that should look like, where to deploy and what tasks to perform peacekeeping contingent, radically different.
First of all, Vladimir Putin believes that peacekeepers should be placed solely on the demarcation line between the conflicting parties and to perform security functions of the OSCE observers.
In Kiev believe that peacekeepers should be present in all areas of the breakaway republics and, above all, not controlled by the Ukraine part of the Russian-Ukrainian border. Kiev and Western countries claim that it is through this section of the border Russia supplies to Donbass manpower, military equipment and ammunition. In Moscow deny these charges, and Vladimir Putin last month said that the closure of the border between the unrecognized republics and Russia could lead to a massacre.
In addition, in Kiev say that the peacekeeping mission should not be "representatives of the aggressor country". In Russia, which does not recognize itself a party to the conflict in the Donbas, the national structure of potential contingent has not yet commented on.
The indisputable fact is that Russia as a permanent member of the UN security Council can veto any peacekeeping proposal of Ukraine. However, the truth is something that is skeptical to the proposals of Moscow are in Washington. "The details of what was requested (relative to the format of the peacekeeping mission of Russia), I think, actually further divide Ukraine, but does not solve the problem," — said recently the special representative of US state Department on Ukraine Kurt Volker.
Why Russia is important for control of the border?
The second of the "Minsk agreements" the point of the "restoration of full control over the state border by the government of Ukraine" is number 9 and it is preceded by provisions on Amnesty for participants of the conflict, the hostage exchange on the principle "all for all", the beginning of the "dialogue on the modalities of local elections".
Based on this, in Moscow interpret the document in such a way that while Ukraine does not begin to fulfill the political part of the agreements in respect of local elections, a return of the border is not. In Kiev, in turn, insist that as long as the border control to keep the supporters of the breakaway DND and LNR, to fulfill the political part of the peace plan impossible.
The border control is important for Russia because it it actually ensures the existence of the two breakaway republics. Moreover, in case of escalation of hostilities, border control will allow Russia to intervene in the conflict. Although Moscow has repeatedly denied the participation of Russian military personnel in the fighting, many journalists working in the region, testified to the contrary.
The President of Russia Vladimir Putin believes that if the border control will be transferred to the Ukrainian side without appropriate policy safeguards, on the territory of the DNI and the LC can begin the "massacre" of supporters of independence. However, the experience of 2014, when the Ukrainian army returned control of such large cities of Donbass, Mariupol, Slavyansk, Kramatorsk, Severodonetsk or Lisichansk, showed that there was no massacre of supporters of DNR and LNR in these cities then occurred.
You need to introduce peacekeepers? How is the decision made?
Procedure at the UN level spelled out in detail: this organization has sent dozens of peacekeeping missions, and you will be able to turn out acceptable to all interested parties of the resolution the questions here will not arise.
Another thing — as the introduction of peacekeepers is a procedural feature in the legal field of Ukraine, which has never faced with the need to legalize the presence of peacekeepers on its territory.
The decision on the admission to Ukraine peacekeepers would have to take the Verkhovna Rada — similar to the permission to enter the territory of a foreign contingents participating in international exercises.
Apparently, the Parliament will need a special law to settle a number of other issues, from logistical aspects to the interactions of the "blue helmets" with the Ukrainian army and the police.
There may be problems of a different kind: how it will be spelled out in the documents of the peacekeeping mission. The idea is that consent to the introduction of the contingent must give all parties to the conflict.
However, in Kiev and in Moscow to determine these parties differently. If Kiev calls a belligerent Russia, in Moscow of involvement in the conflict deny and claim that the introduction of Donbass peacekeepers, Ukraine has to negotiate with the self-proclaimed DND and LNR.
The chances that Parliament will support a document that in any way legitimizes the self-proclaimed education in the East of Ukraine, is minimal.
What does the East of Ukraine for Poroshenko and Putin as politicians?
If in Russia the question of Donbass go away from the current agenda in the Ukraine, it still remains decisive. In 2019, Kiev waiting for presidential and parliamentary elections, and vision of the participants in these campaigns, what to do with the East, will be the main question that will be put to them by the voters.
Poroshenko on the participation election is not yet formally declared, but few in Kyiv doubt that he will stand for re-election. He remains the majority leader of the presidential ratings, but the victory in the first round, as it was in 2014, he can't even dream of. Opponents fiercely criticized "the Minsk agreement", one of the architects of which he was.
In this situation, any significant breakthrough in the de-escalation of the conflict in the East would be a powerful factor that can increase the chances Poroshenko to win the elections. If the fracture in the Donbass will be achieved by the introduction of the peacekeeping contingent there — or at least to present it as such voter, Poroshenko will take advantage of this.
The compromise and the emergence of the prospects for a successful resolution of the Ukrainian crisis could use in his election campaign Vladimir Putin, but the adjustment of the positions of Moscow, Kiev and Washington on the format of the peacekeeping mission at risk so delayed that until March 2018 parties may not be able to negotiate.
What the UN peacekeepers are different from the observation mission of the OSCE and the difference of their status and authority?
Special OSCE monitoring mission in Ukraine (SMM) began its work on March 21, 2014, after the government of Ukraine in the OSCE and the consensus decision of all 57 countries participating in the OSCE. SMM is an unarmed civilian mission, which operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Its main task is to impartially and objectively observe the situation in the region and to publish regular reports about who is party to the conflict, violates the ceasefire.
The OSCE observers from the outset faced with significant mistrust on both sides of the conflict and has repeatedly complained that either Ukrainian military or armed supporters of the independence of the DNI and the LC prevented the members of the mission to the places where not taken away from the contact line heavy weapons.
Repeatedly the question was raised about the possibility of weapons of OSCE observers at least in small arms and light weapons.