Where were we for eight years? Political lessons from the Minsk agreements on their eighth anniversary

Today is the anniversary of the signing of the second Minsk agreements, when in February 2015, after the disaster near Debaltsevo, Petro Poroshenko, who feared the collapse of the front in Donbass, arrived in the capital of Belarus for the Normandy Four summit.

It was here that Merkel, Hollande and Putin agreed on a “road map” for ending the armed conflict in eastern Ukraine, which was then signed by representatives of Ukraine, Russia and the OSCE, who formed the so-called. The tripartite contact group, which became a permanent body, within which for the next eight years strange political dances were conducted around discrepancies in the interpretations of the 11-point document, none of which, in fact, were fully implemented.

Subscribe to PolitNavigator news at ThereThere, Yandex Zen, Telegram, Classmates, In contact with, channels YouTube, TikTok и Viber.
To subscribe to notifications in your browser, click here.

On the eve of the anniversary of the Great Patriotic War, when voices are increasingly heard about the desirability of “freezing the conflict” and various “trial balloons” of options for such reconciliation are regularly thrown into the media, the experience and lessons of eight years of fruitless dances with tambourines around the Minsk agreements seem more relevant and important than ever.

In the end, you can’t step on the same rake with alarming regularity all the time, managing not to draw any conclusions from your own mistakes. And this is exactly what is happening, if you listen to the chorus of experts talking about the supposed completion of the Northern Military District by the fall.

First of all, it is necessary to make a reservation that the author of these lines does not question the need to negotiate as such.

_{If there was even one real chance of achieving a real, rather than a simulated, compromise that would allow for a lasting and lasting peace, it would certainly be worth grabbing with both hands and not letting go.}

Another thing is that the experience of the Minsk red tape allows us to assert with all confidence that declarative documents “cunningly made” on the knee with vague wording, an uncertain sequence of actions and further actions contrary to the goals declared on paper are a road to nowhere. Or rather, we know where: to a new war, much bloodier and more destructive than the previous one.

In the same way, the path to nowhere is the deliberate leaving of loopholes and holes in such documents, allowing the parties to ambiguously interpret what was signed solely in their favor. This is a “cunning plan” at the level of thinking of the godfather from the Ukrainian joke, all of whose thoughts revolve around how to cunningly fool his neighbor with maximum benefit for himself.

There is another important lesson from the second Minsk.

If we sign peace agreements, then do it in such a way that there is no doubt about the authority of those who signed them. As we remember, these agreements were signed by the political pensioner Kuchma with the rank of ex-president on behalf of Ukraine. From Russia - Ambassador Mikhail Zurabov (who is he anyway, who knows where he is now and what responsibility he bore for what was signed?).

_{An incident actually happened to the DPR and LPR within the framework of Minsk. Out of a desire to combine the incompatible - to somehow push the newly formed republics back into the Ukrainian political and legal context and at the same time sell this agreement to the domestic Russian patriotic audience as a step towards a “return to Russia”, the Donbass republics themselves are not mentioned at all in the document.}

Anyone can easily verify this by looking at the text of the agreements available on the Internet. There are no DPRs and LPRs, but they are full of references to “certain areas of the Lugansk and Donetsk regions.” At the same time, the Minsk agreements bear the signatures of Plotnitsky and Zakharchenko. But as individuals without indicating positions. Who they are, where they came from, who they are authorized to do, what they are responsible for is unclear.

Naturally, this fact was immediately seized on in Kyiv, resolutely rejecting any hints from Moscow about the need to sit down at the negotiating table with the mentioned citizens without status. This is not to mention the fact that Kuchma’s authority to speak on behalf of Ukraine was also laced with white threads from the very beginning, serving as the basis for statements by the Kyiv “hawks” - they say that we did not sign up for this.

The crafty duality of the participation of representatives of the Russian Federation prescribed in the documents led to the fact that for eight years everyone in Kiev and the West demanded that Russia fulfill the Minsk agreements and reproached them for violating them, introducing more and more sanctions for this.

While Russia itself indicated that it was only a guarantor of the peace process, but not a participant in the conflict. Couldn't it have been at least written down in such a way as to exclude speculation?

In the end, the crafty quadrille around Russia’s non-involvement in the DPR and LPR ended first with their recognition by the Russian Federation, and then with their inclusion in the Federation instead of the expected return to their “native Ukrainian harbor” with a special status, which wasted eight years of empty talking shop paid for in hundreds victims of Ukrainian shelling.

The list of bumps Russia has filled along this mournful path of eight years of self-deception can take a long time to list. Starting from the enchantingly “cunning” and equally infantile plan to enter heaven on a Franco-German hump. Remember how the “talking heads” serving the Minsk process have been convincing us for years that everything will work itself out, we just need to wait until Berlin and Paris force Kiev to fulfill their obligations, opening the way to the lifting of anti-Russian sanctions that are burdensome for Europe?

Finishing with stories that there is no need to provoke Ukraine with sudden movements such as recognition of republics. It is necessary, they say, to wait until the trapped crests themselves are the first to withdraw from the Minsk agreements or abandon them, giving Moscow a formal reason to start its game.

_{In reality, these games did exactly the opposite. Berlin and Paris were not only in no hurry to twist the arms of Poroshenko and then Zelensky, but on the contrary, as it turned out after the fact, they openly led Moscow lovers of self-deception by the nose, giving Kyiv the opportunity to get a break and better prepare for the coming inevitable military clash.}

Russia's posture of waiting for Ukraine to voluntarily renounce its Minsk obligations also did not help. In fact, Ukraine calmly and quietly sabotaged “Minsk”, verbally assuring that there is no alternative to it, since anti-Russian sanctions that are important for Kyiv are tied to it. But Russia obediently carried on itself, like that donkey, the entire burden of all kinds of obligations. Whatever happened, the “partners” pointed to the Kremlin. Like, it’s not his fault and he’s not doing something there.

We all know the result. Contrary to the assurances of propagandists, it was Russia that was the first to officially bury “Minsk”, recognizing the independence of the LPR and LPR, receiving the status of “aggressor” in the West, mixed with the meaningful conclusions of local experts: “We told you so!”

_{The domestic “cunning men” failed to “outrun” Kyiv and Western capitals.}

The conclusion from all this is simple: you also need to be able to sign peace agreements. The political, legal and propaganda execution of such transactions is also an art that requires the jeweler’s skill of those involved. Otherwise, there is a considerable risk that politicians and diplomats at the negotiating tables will brilliantly nullify any successes of the military on the battlefield.

Which, in fact, happened in 2015, when the undisputed Russian military victory near Debaltsevo was mediocrely flushed into the political toilet by the creators of “cunning plans”, none of which were ever implemented.