Abstract: The successful implementation of the Minsk Protocol has been impugned from the moment of its signing due to ambiguous interpretations of its nature and intentions. The main issues pertain to understanding of the conflict in the Southeast of Ukraine as an intergovernmental, internationalized or domestic political one, the legitimacy and status of the parties to agreement, as well as the role of the international community in settlement of the conflict. The indicated contradictions are also reflected in the difference of approaches towards definition of the conceptual apparatus, as well as its interpretation. The problem at hand goes beyond the scope of political science or legal analysis, and requires comprehensive examination based on the variety of theoretical and methodological approaches. The author agrees with the characterization of conflict in the Southeast of Ukraine as a formalized political unsettled situation. From the political and legal perspectives, the agreements on halting the war demonstrate typical examples of challenges and problems that emerge during negotiations and implementation of the internationalized peace treaties of the post-Cold War period. The refusal of one of the parties, usually the country which territorial integrity is disputed by the non-state party, to meet the other party in the course of peace negotiations is a typical complication of the negotiation processes. Direct negotiations, i.e. meetings where the parties to negotiation make eye contact, can be interpreted as the acts of implicit recognition of non-state parties, their representatives, as well as respective claims. Such different perspective on the mandate, accountability, responsibility, and the status of “direct” and “third” parties in course of negotiation and implementation of peace treaties are typical contradictions. Throughout the entire period of elaboration, signing, and implementation of the agreements, the clash of interests virtually shifted towards the interpretation of terminology.

Abstract: The subject of this research is the sanctions imposed by Western countries against Russia in response to the Ukrainian events of 2014. Leaning on the available empirical data and expert assessments conducted by various financial and analytical structures, an attempt is made to identify the nature and severity of impact of sanction pressure upon different economic sectors of the Russian Federation, implemented for achieving the foreign policy goals. Emphasis is placed on the absence of uniform sanctions policy due to the specificity of foreign policy goals and peculiarities of sanction mechanisms used by the United States and the European Union. It is underlined that anti-Russian sanctions and Russia’s response in many instances are substantiated by the preceding trends in strategic vision of foreign and domestic policy by the Russian Federation, as well as the nature of its relations with the West. The conclusion is made that the focus in studying the problem of sanctions has shifted towards the political analysis and further analytical and scientific examination. The author believes that in the conditions of uncertainty of the economic effects and absence of common approaches towards understanding the prospects of sanctions policy by the Western countries the two main scenarios of its further development. It would either gradually fade out without “renewed efforts”, slowly negating its practical effect, and prompt the United States and the European Union intensify the dialogue with Russia, avoiding the problematic issues on the status of Crimea, implication in the events in South-Eastern Ukraine, etc.; or it can lead to full “politicization” of sanctions polity and its integration into the negotiation process on settlement of the Ukrainian situation and turning into a powerful tool for conducting negotiations.