By Fyodor Lukyanov

Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel's remarks in an interview with the newspaper Die Zeit have caused a stir among commentators: “The 2014 Minsk agreements were an attempt to give Ukraine time,” she admitted. “And it used that time to become stronger, as you can see today. Ukraine of 2014/2015 is not the Ukraine of today.”

Thus, Frau Merkel confirmed the words of Ukrainian officials, above all those of ex-President Pyotr Poroshenko, that Kiev was never going to implement the peace deal, but was just playing games.

The former long-serving head of the German government was not forced to make such a declaration. So we have every right to interpret her remarks literally – that is, as an admission of deceit, or rather of conscious deception. This backs up what Moscow has been saying for a long time – that Ukraine was just pretending to engage in the peace process but was actually preparing for revenge, while the Western countries (Germany and France as direct participants and the US as an indirect curator) were assisting this duplicity. 

We would venture to guess that this is a greatly simplified interpretation and that the reality was somewhat different. In some ways, though, it is worse, because consciously chosen behavior is easier to understand than the more chaotic alternative. It’s reasonable to suspect that Merkel had no special ulterior motive either when the peace deals were signed or when they were not implemented. In both cases, Berlin and Paris sincerely believed that they were working hard for peace and security in Europe.

The Minsk agreements, which managed to be put into effect on the second try, were the result of Ukraine's military defeats, meaning the task of its Western backers was therefore to stop the fighting by any means necessary. In some quarters at the time it was said that Merkel had actually advised Poroshenko not to sign the proposed document because she understood that the terms enshrined therein were beneficial to Moscow. The idea that the special conditions for the return of Donbass to Ukraine spelled out in Minsk would allow Russia to have a kind of “stop valve” to block further geopolitical moves by Kiev suited the Russian side.

The Kremlin did appear to believe this was possible, although there were also opponents of the approach. The Ukrainian side was guided by its traditional political culture, which believes there is no such thing as a final agreement. So what difference does it make – i.e. we will sign now and then we will see.

Was there some sort of cunning plan conjured by Berlin (Paris, then represented by François Hollande, should not be considered separately – the French president was acting as a sidekick of Merkel at the time)? Hardly. Rather, there were two instincts at work.

The first was that Ukraine was a priori in the right and Russia was in the wrong, whereas the specific circumstances were unimportant. The second was to find a way to brush it all under the rug so that there would be no need to constantly worry about how to resolve the issue and be distracted by a subject that was, in general, secondary to the broader European politics of the time.

The latter method did not work, as we can see now. In reality, things worked out along the lines of what Merkel is saying now: The Minsk agreements bought time to rearm Ukraine and prepare it for war with Russia. But to assume that this was the original intention is to embellish the strategic talents of the Western Europeans.

Of course, if the Minsk agreements had been seen by the participants as a serious tool to achieve certain goals (albeit ones different from what they are now saying), perhaps they would have played a useful role. However, because all sides had an actual agenda in addition to the one being proclaimed, the process really did become a smokescreen for something entirely different.

Paradoxically, the loser was the one with the smallest gap between its two agendas. Russia's declared and true objectives differed less from each other than was the case for the others. And Moscow did push for Minsk to be implemented as close to the letter of the agreements as possible, whereas the others – from what Merkel said – saw them at the very least as nothing more than a way to buy time. 

Why Angela Merkel is now saying such things is clear. In the current Western frame of reference, diplomacy with Putin, even retrospectively and with seemingly good intentions, is considered criminal collusion. Frank-Walter Steinmeier, who since the days of Gerhard Schröder’s chancellorship had invested a lot in “rapprochement through mutual dependence,” has simply apologized: saying he was wrong and sorry. 

Merkel, however, is looking for rational excuses, or rather making them up, by reshaping the situation as it was back then to suit the present one. But she is doing it in such a way that actually supports what Putin has been pointing out: How can we negotiate at all then? But that is already of no interest to anyone.

The Minsk agreements are a thing of the past because they brought to a close one phase of the conflict, whereas now another, qualitatively different, one is raging. It is very difficult to imagine that it will end with something similar to the negotiations of 2014-2015. Indeed, so far, it is not at all clear what is even meant when there is talk about negotiations. Negotiate about what? All sides in the standoff have already declared it existential – so what compromises can there be? Nevertheless, it is useful to remember the political lessons of the Minsk agreements, and not at a later date, but now.

This article was first published by Profile.ru

By Fyodor Lukyanov, the editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs, chairman of the Presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, and research director of the Valdai International Discussion Club.

READ MORE:

https://www.rt.com/news/568160-angela-merkel-revelations-ukraine/

READ FROM TOP.

WE STICK TO OUR VIEWS AT TOP.

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

"God always forgives me... It's his job..."

History and Society

The former German chancellor admits that the Minsk agreement only served to buy time to allow Ukraine to arm itself. This revelation is a real bomb that shows who really wanted the war, NATO, the USA. The complicity, the forfeiture, there is no other word, of Merkel and Hollande gave rise to no real debate in France and this is where we measure the absence of a communist party – and therefore from the left – on these international issues. The consequences of the silence thus instituted in the French parliament as in almost all the institutions are dramatic, whereas, as we are trying to show here, the conditions are met for our country, its workers, its youth to play a role in peace, a new coming. There will be no "socialism" without this broadening of our horizons and if we continue the censorship which characterizes the TOTALITY of the media on these questions. As much as I find it fair that the discussions of the Congress take place in the calm and the real concerns of the French workers, it seems to me impossible to pose the question of socialism, from a communist perspective, without seeing to what extent the current blindness organized in the PCF in the international context, de facto membership of NATO makes any reflection on French sovereignty, energy, industrial, and above all on peace, illusory. 

Danielle Bleitrach

by Peter schwarz

According to former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the Minsk agreement was used to buy time to rearm Ukraine. " The 2014 Minsk agreement was an attempt to buy Ukraine time “, Angela Merkel told the weekly Time and patience. " She also took the opportunity to become stronger, as you can see today ».

Merkel, who was also leader of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), has made few public statements since being replaced as Chancellor by Olaf Scholz (Social Democratic Party, SPD) a year ago after sixteen years in office. The long interview published by Time and patience December 7 is a rare exception.

Behind the scenes, however, Merkel remains politically active. In her office, to which she is entitled as a former chancellor, she employs nine people, four more than the authorized number: a director, a deputy director, two administrators, three employees and two drivers. She maintains regular contact with Scholz, as he himself has reported. She had already maintained good relations with him when he was still Minister of Finance in the grand coalition government.

It is all the more remarkable that she admits that the Minsk agreement served to buy time for the rearmament of Ukraine. " It was clear to all of us that the conflict was at an impasse, that the problem had not been resolved, but that is precisely what gave Ukraine precious time “Merkel told Time and patience.

Previously, the Minsk Agreement, which Merkel signed with then French President Francois Hollande, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and Russian President Vladimir Putin in September 2014, had been portrayed as a peace effort that the President Russian would then have thwarted.

Now Merkel confirms that NATO wanted war from the start, but needed time to prepare militarily: an assessment the WSWS has long maintained.

Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States has pursued the goal of remaining the “sole world power”. To this end, Washington has waged many criminal wars and expanded NATO into Eastern Europe. Now they also want to bring Ukraine, Georgia and other former Soviet republics into NATO and subjugate Russia in order to plunder its resources and isolate China.

The German government is using the war in Ukraine to assert its claim to become Europe's leading power and a major military power. Merkel's third government, a grand coalition made up of the Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU) and the SPD, placed this objective at the center of its program in 2013. In terms of foreign policy, it thus follows the model of the grand plans power of the Kaiserreich (Imperial Empire) and the Nazi regime.

« Germany must be ready to get involved earlier, more decisively and more substantially in foreign and security policy said then-foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier (SPD), now president of Germany, at the Munich security conference in 2014. Germany was “ too big to comment on world politics only from the sidelines ».

Just two months after Merkel's third government took office, the United States and Germany staged a coup in Ukraine in February 2014, which used fascist militias to aid a pro-government regime. -NATO to seize power. Washington and Berlin, however, had a problem. The dominant role played in the new regime by right-wing nationalists, admirers of Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera, and fascist militias has divided the country, particularly in the predominantly Russian-speaking east, where the prospect of being ruled by ultranationalists Ukrainians was greeted with horror.

Russia, fearing for its Black Sea Fleet base in Sevastopol, annexed Crimea following a referendum. Russian-backed separatists have proclaimed independent republics in Donetsk and Lugansk in eastern Ukraine.

The new rulers of kyiv were unable to prevent this. The Ukrainian army collapsed. Soldiers reluctant to sacrifice themselves for the new regime had deserted en masse.

Under these circumstances, Merkel and Hollande staged the Minsk agreement – ​​as Merkel now admits – to freeze the conflict and buy time. The agreement provided for a ceasefire, the withdrawal of heavy weapons and the creation of a security zone, monitored by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). The Ukrainian government has pledged to amend the constitution to grant special status to Donetsk and Luhansk and grant them greater autonomy.

Almost none of this has been implemented. In particular, the Ukrainian side boycotted all agreements. She didn't want a negotiated settlement. Lacking soldiers ready to fight, Petro Poroshenko's newly installed president mobilized the Azov Battalion and other fascist militias, which the billionaire oligarch partly financed himself. These militias were integrated into the armed forces and sent to the separatist regions to terrorize the local population and maintain the conflict.

The kyiv regime – whether under Poroshenko or his successor Zelensky – and its backers in Berlin and Washington have never wanted a peaceful solution. What interested them was to buy time to escalate the war, even if this had disastrous consequences for the population of the affected areas.

The German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP), which is close to the German government and has no sympathy for Russia, published a document titled “The Donbas Conflict” in February 2019 – three years before the current war does not break out. It paints a devastating picture, which clearly shows that the kyiv regime has always been preoccupied with geopolitical objectives in the Donbass conflict – to join NATO, to isolate Russia – and that it was ready to ruthlessly sacrifice the fate of the Ukrainian population to these goals.

« kyiv's discourse on the Donbass war focuses almost exclusively on the geopolitical level and the relationship with Russia “, indicates the document. The lack of a " local level of conflict has, according to this view, serious consequences on the perception of the affected civilian population ", who is " perceived in Kyiv as backward, under Soviet influence, unproductive and authoritarian ". In the eyes of most interlocutors, the Donbas issue cannot be resolved through “reconciliation” between individual ethnic or social groups ". From Kyiv's point of view, building peace will only be possible once the territories are liberated, that is, once they are again fully under Ukrainian control».

source: History and Society

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....