Merkel and Minsk
On 7th December, the German newspaper Die Zeit published an interview with Angela Merkel in which she discussed her political legacy, including the Minsk agreements. These were peace deals between Ukraine the Russian-backed separatists brokered by herself and Francois Hollande in 2014/2015.
In the interview, Merkel said something that has attracted widespread attention, prompting responses from several world leaders: “The 2014 Minsk agreement was an attempt to give Ukraine time.”
This, along with some of her other comments, has been interpreted as meaning that Merkel never intended to make peace between Ukraine and the Russian-backed separatists; she only wanted to give Ukraine time to build up its armed forces and prepare for a larger conflict.
Referring to Merkel’s comments, Vladimir Putin said, “It was absolutely unexpected for me. It’s disappointing … Trust almost dropped to zero.” This only shows, he went on to say, “that launching the SMO [Special Military Operation] was the right decision”.
Likewise, the Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić said, “Merkel’s statement is something that dramatically changes the state of things … If they could play like that with someone who is much stronger than us, so lie and deceive a country like the Russian Federation … it changes a lot for me.”
However, if you read all of what she said in the interview, it becomes clear that Merkel’s statement has been taken out of context.
Crucially, she begins by saying:
Let’s look at my policy towards Russia and Ukraine. I come to the conclusion that I made the decisions I made back then in a way that I can understand today. It was an attempt to prevent just such a war. The fact that this was not successful does not mean that the attempts were wrong.
Her interviewer responds, “But you can still find plausible how you acted in earlier circumstances and still consider it wrong today in view of the results.”
Merkel then says:
But that presupposes also saying what exactly the alternatives were at the time. I thought the initiation of NATO accession for Ukraine and Georgia discussed in 2008 to be wrong … the consequences of such a decision [had not] been fully considered … And the 2014 Minsk agreement was an attempt to give Ukraine time.
Her interviewer responds, “The aim was to gain time with a ceasefire in order to later come to a peace between Russia and Ukraine.”
Merkel then says:
It also used this time to get stronger, as you can see today. The Ukraine of 2014/15 is not the Ukraine of today. As you saw in the battle for Debaltseve in early 2015, Putin could easily have overrun them at the time. And I very much doubt that the NATO countries could have done as much then as they do now to help Ukraine.
So Merkel begins by stating that her policy towards Russia and Ukraine was an “attempt to prevent … war”. She then mentions that the first Minsk agreement was an “attempt to give Ukraine time,” which her interviewer interprets to mean “time with a ceasefire in order to later come to a peace between Russia and Ukraine”.
Merkel adds that Ukraine “also used this time to get stronger”. The use of “also” suggests she meant that the agreement had two effects: stopping the fighting long enough to broker a lasting peace deal; and allowing Ukraine to get stronger in the interim. She didn’t say it was purely a way of giving Ukraine time to prepare for a larger conflict.
Her comment that Ukraine “used this time to get stronger” could still be seen as gaffe, given how it has been deployed in the media by pro-Russian commentators. Perhaps it would have been prudent of her to refrain from giving them ammunition at such a diplomatically sensitive time.
Indeed, she may have said it for self-serving reasons – to make her own past decisions look more favourable to Ukraine. Recall that Petro Poroshenko, the former Ukrainian President, has repeatedly justified his decision to sign the second Minsk agreement using the same line of argument.
There’s another reason to doubt that Merkel never intended to make peace: if she knew a larger conflict was coming, why did she go ahead with Nord Stream 2? Later in the interview, Merkel states that refusing to proceed with the pipeline in “combination with the Minsk agreement” would have “dangerously worsened the climate with Russia”. This again suggests she believed that peace was possible.
It’s also worth noting that in a November interview with Der Speigel, Merkel said she had “wanted to establish an independent European discussion format with Putin again” in the summer of 2021. Though her efforts went nowhere “because everyone knew [she] would be gone in the fall.”
Whether the Minsk agreements could have prevented war is a matter for debate. But the claim that Merkel only ever saw them as a way of delaying war is not supported by her recent comments.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Ukes and the Americans, had no intention of ‘honouring’ Minsk. It was designed to buy time so NATO could arm the Uketopia, that shining beacon of democracy and trans rights, run by the Jewish one party state Kleptocracy. You can have Minsk 2, 3, and 14 and it won’t matter. The Russians for good reasons want a buffer zone between the 51rst US state (Uketopia) and their borders. The Ukes want their entire state back. Not happening. Best to make a deal, split the country and let Zelensky and his Jewish cabal milk the US budgets for $100 billion a year. The main question in the future is when will the US invade the Russian territories in the East? I guess when they need another war. Maybe post the Taiwan or Algerian wars. Ukes will be the fodder. The Americans will be the generals and deny any involvement as always.
Some kind of a compromise from the start would have been ideal (especially that Russian demands in the beginning were not outrageous). But who with? Neither Ukraine, nor EU have any say in the matter and the US wants to fight Russia for as long as there is last breathing Ukrainian left.
Ukraine gave up nukes and other weapons in exchange for security guarantees from Russia, USA and UK. It is clear Putin had no intention of honouring Ukraine.
US and UK should have intervened with force when Russia first invaded.
The UK and USA shouldn’t have got involved — that would have been highly inflammatory.
What they should have done in 2015 is worked with the UN to introduce blue-hat (ie, independent of NATO countries) policing of the region, along with the monitoring of any elections that took place.
I think you are on the wrong blog site.
Did Ukraine really have nukes? Ukraine was a part of Soviet Union and it had always been moscow, and not republics, who had and controlled the nukes. any other post soviet country has soviet inherited nukes? why did russia have to give Ukraine soviet made nukes? (thanks God Ukraine doesn’t have nukes though, we’d all be dead by now if they did).
Will Nicola have nukes as a leaving present from Westminster, I wonder?
Clearly it was agreed to give Ukraine time to beef up their army which is what they have done! Well done you warmongering countries not only have you got blood on your hands you have shown the rest of the world you cannot be trusted. Chickens will come home to roost and there is no one else to blame but ourselves. Someone compared this to Chamberlain during the last war, waving his piece of paper “peace in our time” because we were not ready for war at that time either so we bought time!
However her words are interpreted, the fact is that both Germany and France, as guarantors, failed in their legal responsibility to ensure that Ukraine complied with the terms of the Minsk Agreements. Both Merkel and her successor should be held accountable.
An average Joe be like: ‘wait, what? Minks agreements? There is a past history between the two countries stretching a long way back?? Hang on, MSM told us in February that Putin just likes to invade neighboring democratic and piece loving countries to make soviet union 2.0 on some false pretense like discovering of neo Nazis?’ (goes on to read something else apart from the BBC). Returns: ‘US-orchestrated coup in Kiev? there are really neo-Nazi loving crowds marching with torches in central Kiev celebrating nasty piece of shit Bandera!? There are really neo Nazi battalions (Azov and numerous others) incorporated into the Ukrainian MoD? These neo Nazis and regular troops took part in the killings of Russian speaking civilians in the breakaway regions?? US/West/NATO were funding the whole thing for a long time? US/Pentagon bio labs in Ukraine funded through Hunter Biden affiliated companies? Biden’s son also employed by a Ukrainian energy company? Saint Zelensky jailed his opponents and appears to have some hidden wealth in off-shores as confirmed by the Panama papers?’ An average Joe looks surprised and having become significantly poorer, feels he’s been had once again. But it’s too late. Like with Covid, the damage has been… Read more »
To me the most interesting part of those comments is that she/Germany was not on board with the expansion of NATO to Georgia and Ukraine.
If that is true, it’s somewhat revealing of the dynamic of NATO in particular and these multinational organisations in general. A country the size and economic might of Germany still doesn’t have the clout to influence decisions that ultimately have a transformational effect on their own country. The loss of Russian hydrocarbons will have a colossal impact on Germany over several generations and Germany, seemingly, has been powerless to avoid it.
This doesn’t bode well for our futures. Which nation will have the power to push back on the diktats of the WHO when it announces its next pandemic and mandates all the draconian measures it has in store? Which nation has the leeway to even opt out of this in first place? None.
These multinational organisations are the scourge of humanity.
Funny thing, significant part of Ukraine prior to Feb 22 was not on board with the NATO expansion as polls showed (polls might now show otherwise, but whether you can trust them during the war when all opposition is banned is a big question). And I bet Georgia is glad that they (their puppet leaders) abandoned the idea of NATO membership and it’s not their country which has become a site of a proxy war between nuclear states.
Finnish, Swedish population majority really want their countries to become parts of NATO? Hmm, not sure.
After all the lies and deceit proliferated by the “West” (USA/NATO) why should other nations (outside this complicity) ever trust the “West” again?
The combined population of the USA and Europe represents less than 15% of the world population – the remaining 85% increasingly view the “West” as treacherous warmongers. This reputation is entirely due to a very small clique of neo con conspirators in Washington and London, allowed into power by apathetic voters – or doctored elections.
We have become an unimportant minority, in a world on our own.
Depends on the translation. The German word ‘also’ translates as ‘thus’ or ‘therefore’ in English.
’… “time with a ceasefire in order to later come to a peace between Russia and Ukraine”.’
‘It also [thus/therefore] used this time to get stronger, as you can see today.’
So was the ceasefire a delaying tactic so that the Ukraine could get strong enough to renege on any deal it made?
‘… : if she knew a larger conflict was coming, why did she go ahead with Nord Stream 2?’
After the last two years you credit politicians with any sense or foresight? Dear me!
If we accept that Ukraine had become an independent country from Russia, then despite any level of encouragement from America’s actions Russia attacked an independent country which had not instigated any action against them. The real problem is Putin and his Russian supporters do not accept that Ukraine is no longer part of Russia and his aim is to annexe it. Whatever he says there was no justification for Putin starting the war and Putin expected that he would have achieved his aim in a few weeks before other countries could have time to help Ukraine resist him. The time gained by Merkel’s involvement enabled Ukraine to strengthen its forces sufficiently to resist the inadequate force that Russia initially attacked with. If Russia had used a stronger force initially, its possible it could have been all over in a few weeks, but Putin misjudged what he was up against and failed. The result has been a continuing war that is costing thousands of lives and destroying Ukraine and now Ukraine feels quite rightly justified in taking the war to Russia’s interior, although I suspect is being restrained in that action by the threat of withdrawal of America’s support if they… Read more »
https://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=28842
Good summary of it all.
And a more provocative but entertaining one.
https://www.unz.com/article/how-long-can-the-ukraine-war-last/