In reality, the Germans and other Europeans were all, like the Russians, genuinely interested in achieving a lasting peace in Ukraine.

❗️Join us on Telegram, Twitter , and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The current conflict in Ukraine is undoubtedly a direct result of the failure of the so-called “Minsk Protocol” – a set of agreements signed between the separatist republics of Donbass and the Ukrainian government, mediated by the Russian Federation and the European Union.

Instead of ending or at least “freezing” the conflict, the diplomatic dialogue in Minsk had as its greatest success only a slight decrease in the intensity of hostilities. The task to “stop the war” was never accomplished, with clashes in the Russian-majority regions lasting for eight years until Moscow’s intervention in February 2022.

A series of questions arise from these reflections. The reasons for the diplomatic failure still do not seem completely clear among public opinion. But it is necessary to remember that, according to former German Prime Minister Angela Merkel, there was never a real “failure” to fulfill the objectives of the Protocol. For her, the Agreements always had the real intention of simply “giving time” to Ukraine, enabling Kiev to prepare for combat against Moscow in the near future.

The explanation given by Merkel, if taken as true, actually helps to understand the reasons for the escalation of the crisis in Ukraine. If everything was nothing more than a Western plan to train and arm Kiev, then we would have in Minsk a kind of “Molotov-Ribbentrop 2.0” – that is, a pact with the objective, not of achieving definitive peace, but of relieving tensions temporarily and allow arming and preparation for war on both sides. However, this does not seem to be the opinion of other officials who participated in the diplomatic process in 2014.

Recently, I had the opportunity to work as a correspondent in the conflict zone in Donbass. During a visit to the Lugansk People’s Republic, I spoke with several local leaders, being able to collect valuable data and ground information inaccessible to any Western citizen. One of these meetings was with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Lugansk, Vladislav Deinego, with whom I had a long and fruitful conversation on issues related to global geopolitics and the recent history of the Donbass region.

One of the most interesting points in Deinego’s professional history is his participation as a negotiator during the Minsk diplomatic process. As a representative of the breakaway Republic’s foreign affairs, Vladislav was involved in talks with the Ukrainian side – mediated by Russia and Europe – and, being an insider, he strongly disagrees with Angela Merkel’s assessment about the nature of the agreement.

He says that the Germans and other Europeans were all, like the Russians, genuinely interested in achieving a lasting peace in Ukraine. This interest existed because the imminence of a conflict called into question the entire regional security architecture, generating instability for all countries on the continent. With the incursions of Kiev’s forces into the separatist regions becoming increasingly aggressive and deeper, with a serious risk of reaching the borders of the Russian Federation, the possibility of a total war worried everyone at that point.

It was with a genuine intention of achieving peace that the sides came to talks and discussed terms favorable to both belligerent agents. Vladislav also says that the process was preceded by several failed attempts to limit the war and reduce fighting to confrontations with solid humanitarian barriers. For example, Vladislav states that, having exhausted the possibilities of avoiding the conflict, the Republics proposed to Kiev an agreement to ban weapons of high lethality power (artillery and aviation). The aim was to save the civilians of Donbass, even amid the inevitability of war. The Ukrainian government, however, vehemently denied any dialogue in this regard.

Subsequently, a new proposal emerged from the separatists: authorizing heavy weapons only within a specific territorial limit, respecting the distance from civilians. In this model, the closer to civilian regions, the lower the lethality of the weapons used by combatants should be – which would limit combat on the “zero line” to infantry attrition. On the other hand, the further away from civilians, the heavier the weapons used could be, with authorization to use artillery at distances that would not reach civilians. However, Kiev rejected the agreement, opting for total and unlimited war.

It was Kiev’s own insistence on war that increased Europeans’ fear of a situation of uncontrolled belligerence across the continent – possibly involving Russia. It is important to remember that until the start of the special military operation in February 2022, Russia and Germany appeared as very important strategic partners on the European scenario, with Moscow being the main supplier of gas and oil to Germany – and all of Europe. This largely explains the reasons why Berlin engaged in the Minsk process as the key mediator on the Ukrainian side. For the Germans, it was essential to avoid a war situation that would harm their relations with the Russians, and there was, therefore, a great German effort to reach an agreement.

For all this, Vladislav is categorical: “Merkel lies”. The Minsk Protocol was not, for the Minister, a great Western conspiracy to give Ukraine time, but the result of joint efforts by Europeans and Russians to avoid a military escalation. And this brings us a series of reflections on the real reason for the failure of the Agreements.

In fact, there was never real respect for the Protocol. Kiev continued to frequently bomb Donbass and murder civilians in its project to “de-Russify” Ukraine. Certainly, there was a significant decrease in the intensity of the fighting, but real compliance with the Agreements had never been achieved. For Merkel, this is proof that peace was never a goal; but for Deinego, another diplomat who was also behind the scenes of the negotiations, this is simply proof of Europe’s failure to protect its own interests.

Peace was a European interest at the time. There were no sanctions undermining Russian-European relations and all sides had much to gain from stable, diplomatic dialogue. If Kiev was encouraged to disregard the Minsk Agreements and try to “retake” Donbass by force, then the agent fomenting the chaos might be outside the European continent.

It is then that we reflect on Washington’s role. Leading NATO and maintaining an abusive and semi-colonial relationship with the European Union, the U.S. is directly to blame for the failure of the Minsk Agreements and the worsening of the Ukrainian crisis. War with Russia has always been in American, not European, plans. And a Ukraine fanaticized by neo-Nazi hatred against the Russian people perfectly served these plans. Unable to engage in direct conflict, the U.S. used Ukraine as a proxy to wage war on Moscow – without even asking what Europeans’ opinion about it.

As much as the Minsk Agreements actually seem like a kind of “temporary pact” to “give time” to the belligerent sides, the opinion of insiders is vital to clarify the real nature of the Protocol. In Deinego’s opinion, the desire for peace on the part of Russians and Europeans was real. Merkel may say something different so as not to reveal the real dimension of German and European diplomatic weakness.

The actual culprits for the war are the neo-Nazis in Kiev and their sponsors in Washington. Just like Russia, Europe is just a victim of NATO’s war plans – but unlike Moscow, the European Union simply passively accepted and even decided to support American maneuvers.