|
‘Minsk II Was Agreed On To Arm Ukraine’ – Did Merkel Really Say That?
Helmholtz Smith, Andrew Korybko and Andrei Martyanov have some thoughts about a recent interview the former German chancellor Angela Merkel gave to the German weekly broadsheet Die Zeit.
Smith says it shows that the 'West' is not trustworthy. Korybko thinks the interview will prolong the conflict in Ukraine. Martyanov says that Merkel is stupid. She isn't.
In the interview Merkel seems to claim that the Minsk agreements between the Ukrainian government and the Donbas region, which she negotiated and co-signed as guarantor, was never meant to be fulfilled. It was only meant to give time to build up the Ukrainian military.
I however think that such an interpretation is wrong. Merkel is under very harsh critique not only in the U.S. but also in her own conservative party. She is now out to justify her previous decisions as well as the current bad outcome in Ukraine. My hunch is that she is making things up. Unfortunately she also creates serious damage.
The relevant passage of the interview is longer than the one paragraph Helmholtz Smith and other cite. The context is important. Here is my translation of it:
ZEIT: Do you ask yourself if the years of relative calm were also years of omissions and if you were not only a crisis manager, but also partly the cause of crises?
Merkel: I would not be a political person if I did not deal with that. […some stuff about climate action …] Let us 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.
I think the above is genuine. The Minsk agreements were a serious attempt to prevent war by reintegrating Donbas into a federalized Ukraine.
However, the Ukrainian president Poroshenko did not have the will and the political backing to fulfill the agreement. There was no chance that, under him, a federalization law would pass the Ukrainian parliament. Moreover the U.S., the only party who could have really pressured him, told him not to follow up on the agreement. But then came Zelensky who was elected by a large majority on the promise to fulfill Minsk II. He even made attempts to do that. But he soon found out that his own life was in serious danger if he continued to try. There was also U.S. pressure as it which did not want Minsk fulfilled. Merkel however can not say that out loud. By late 2019 she must have recognized that Minsk II was blocked forever. It was a serious defeat for her but there was nothing she could do about it.
She therefore now comes up, ex post, with a Chamberlain excuse. The 1938 Munich agreement Chamberlain signed prevented Germany from immediately going to war and gave the UK and others time to arm up. The Minsk agreement, Merkel claims now, bought time for Ukraine to get its military into better conditions:
ZEIT: But one can still find it plausible how one acted in earlier circumstances and today, in view of the results, consider it wrong.
Merkel: But that also requires you to say what exactly the alternatives were at the time. I thought the initiation of NATO accession for Ukraine and Georgia discussed in 2008 was wrong. The countries neither had the necessary prerequisites for this, nor had the consequences of such a decision been fully considered, both with regard to Russia's actions against Georgia and Ukraine and to NATO and its rules of assistance. And the 2014 Minsk agreement was an attempt to give Ukraine time.
(ZEIT Editor Note: The Minsk Agreement is a set of agreements for the self-proclaimed republics of Donetsk and Luhansk, which under Russian influence broke away from Ukraine . The aim was to gain time with a ceasefire in order to later come to a peace between Russia and Ukraine.)
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 (railway town in Donbass, Donetsk Oblast, ed.) 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.
ZEIT: In your first public appearance after the end of your chancellorship, you said that you had already recognized in 2007 how Putin thinks about Europe and that the only language he understands is harshness. If this realization came so early, why did you pursue an energy policy that made us so dependent on Russia?
Merkel: It was clear to all of us that the conflict was frozen, that the problem had not been solved, but that gave Ukraine valuable time. Of course, one can now ask the question: Why was the construction of Nord Stream 2 still approved in such a situation?
ZEIT: Yes, why? Especially since there was already very strong criticism of the construction of the pipeline at that time, for example from Poland and the USA.
Merkel: Yes, one could come to different opinions. What was it about? On the one hand, Ukraine attached great importance to remaining a transit country for Russian gas. It wanted to channel gas through her territory and not through the Baltic Sea. Today people sometimes act as if every Russian gas molecule was from the devil. It wasn't like that, the gas was contested. On the other hand, it was not the case that the federal government had applied for the approval of Nord Stream 2, the companies did that. Ultimately, for the federal government and for me, it was a matter of deciding whether we would make a new law as a political act to expressly refuse approval of Nord Stream 2.
ZEIT: What prevented you from doing that?
Merkel: On the one hand, such a refusal in combination with the Minsk Agreement would, in my view, have dangerously worsened the climate with Russia. On the other hand, the energy policy dependency arose because there was less gas from the Netherlands and Great Britain and limited production volumes in Norway. …
I think that Merkel is obfuscating. Her original intent with Minsk II was not to buy time to arm Ukraine. Her intent was to prevent a further war and to make peace. The argument, that it gave time for Ukraine to arm, is only made now and only to save her political ass in the current political climate.
The proof for that is in what she also brings up, Nord Stream 2, which has always had her full support. Its intent was to make Germany independent from the pipelines through Ukraine and Poland. But war came before the much delayed pipeline was ready. And any realistic alternative for Germany's current position was gone after the U.S. finally blew it up. Her answer with regards to Nord Stream 2 makes no sense if she, at the same time that Nord Stream 2 was being built, had intentionally prepared Ukraine for war.
There is another point that makes the 'bought time' ex post argument invalid. In 2014 Russia came under quite harsh sanctions and had huge problems to reconfigure its supply chains. Russia has used the time since to prepare for even harsher sanctions and a war. Notice how few problems Russia has now after really crushing sanctions were deployed. That required preparation. In 2018 Russia introduced a number of superior strategic weapons which are now deployed. In 2014 the S-400 air defense system was only a prototype. Today all Russian air defense groups have and deploy it. Russia used the time to up its war supplies, especially artillery ammunition and missiles.
If you think the 'bought time' argument is genuine look at the situation in Russia and compare with the Ukraine and the rest of Europe. Who has used the time better? Who is now in a better position?
The problem with Merkel's sorry and false excuse is that it creates, as Korybko points out, real damage. Everyone, including Russia's president Putin, seems to read only that one paragraph with the ex post argument, not the full context. This makes bringing the war in Ukraine to an end much more difficult.
Putin now says he had believed in Merkel's seriousness about Minsk. He is now deeply disappointed. Who can he talk to about peace when everyone one on the other side is non-agreement capable?
AZ đ°đđđ @AZgeopolitics – 15:41 UTC · 9 Dec 2022
đ©đȘđșđŠđ·đș Putin â about Merkel's words about cheating with the Minsk agreements:"To be honest, it was absolutely unexpected for me. It's disappointing. Trust almost dropped to 0. How to negotiate? About what? And is it possible to negotiate with them? Where are the guarantees? "
Video with English subs
bigger
I hope that Putin will still read the interview in its full context and change his mind.
Was it Merkel's intent to undermine trust? I don't know. Why would she?
For the record: I have disliked most of Merkel's policies. I never voted for her or for any of the parties which supported her governments. But she wasn't a bad politician and I did respect her. That respect is now gone.
Thank you very much b, for the properly translated interview.
I donât wholly agree with the conclusions and will parse, Muttis and bâs statements to show that.
ââŠâ are from bâs article. /-âŠ.-/ are MY opinion. Sorry it is so long.
âIt was an attempt to prevent just such a war. â
/-She didnât want a war or even such a war, but she was a leader of a militarily occupied nation of 75 years and her options for independence were therefore limited. You canât be elected if you state your aim is independence from the occupying imperial forces that you are required to support to even have a chance of standing for election.
Can any politician?
And be allowed to win?
The only way is to play the game, get in, STAY IN and build a unassailable position and alliances that would allow for the possibility of independence.
That is the political way – by being in the tent pissing out – then finding a way to clear out the elephant in that room. -/
âThere was also U.S. pressure as it did not want Minsk fulfilled. Merkel however can not say that out loud.
/ -THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT SHE HAS DONE WITH THIS STATEMENT-/
âBy late 2019 she must have recognized that Minsk II was blocked forever. â
/- she must have known at the inception that it was a red herring and she was being used by the occupation FUKUS governance-/
âIt was a serious defeat for her but there was nothing she could do about it.â
/-oh she could do something about it and DID-/
âMerkel: But that also requires to say what exactly the alternatives were at the time. I thought the initiation of NATO accession for Ukraine and Georgia discussed in 2008 was wrong. â
/-not even did she know in 2014, she is STATING that she knew where this was leading in 2008; funnily enough thatâs when Putin also stated it at the Munich Conference, didnât he? -/
âIt also used this time to get stronger, as you can see today.
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.â
/- this is the crucial statement about what the Imperiums plan was To INITIATE an invasion of the republics as a R2P these peoples.
WHY would the Waste want to provoke that?
To put a stop to German independence, the sane EU /EurAsia cooperation and most of all to cleave the plans of getting the SCO upto speed (Russia and China were working on it since the 1990âs) ; To keep steering the BRICS away from that new entity with China and stop the rest of the bullied world into joining that multipolar objective.
The Imperiums Masters needed to build the propaganda against Russia and then China and keep the BRICS as their thing.
By portraying Putin as the mad , bad, dictator, who invaded little old Ukraine.
Because he had stopped their plans of the full desecration and parcelling up the lands and resources of Russia. Because he was refusing to play their game or retiring and letting their puppets and oligarchs take over and sell it all to the Western hyenas -/
âUkraine attached great importance to remaining a transit country for Russian gas. It wanted to channel gas through her territory and not through the Baltic Sea. Today it is sometimes acted as if every Russian gas molecule was from the devil.â
/- lol ainât that the TRUTH -/
âI think that Merkel is obfuscating. Her original intent with Minsk II was not to buy time to arm Ukraine. Her intent was to prevent a further war and to make peace. The argument, that it gave time for Ukraine to arm, is only made now and only to save her political ass in the current political climate.â
/- she has NO NEED of a political arse anymore , she built one and USED it to stay a lot longer than expected, she steered a EU against the wishes of the FUKUS vultures and resisted the BrexShitheads in all their forms being seeded across the EU , through dark money for funding of âpopularâ new parties as well as mass media and social media manipulation – /
âThe proof for that is in what she also brings up, Nord Stream 2, which has always had her full support. Its intent was to make Germany independent from the pipelines through Ukraine and Poland. â
/- BINGO. Yes exactly-/
âBut war came before the much delayed pipeline was ready. â
/- war only came after she finally LEFT office , within weeks as was planned by the hegemony, remember it was cancelled in 2021, because Russia âgot windâ of the provocations planned DURING Covid and moved a very large numbers of troops to threaten a massive overreaction which would have hurt a lot of the wrong part in the planned provocation in Ukraine.
The pipeline was only ânot readyâ because the US had introduced unilateral sanctions against individual companies and individuals building it, to stop them completing it before Merkel had to leave office; Getting the wannabe minnows to withhold permissions etc. the pipeline was ready, it was pressurised and was held up by paperwork. She could do no more and was stopped from inaugurating it as her last action as the chancellor that had given Germany a road to actual independence -/
âAnd any realistic alternative for Germany’s current position was gone after the U.S. finally blew it up. â
/- Yes. PERFIDIOUS bastards that we are.
I DIDNâT believe that the dumb desperate Imperial late stage Caesars and their mindless praetorians would actually blow up a massive piece of infrastructure! They did the bridge as well.
Itâs like blowing up the Channel Tunnel!
It is a direct provocation to force a response that would be used in the propaganda war – the only war that the Collective Waste has to hang onto its hegemony. -/
âHer answer with regards to Nord Stream 2 makes no sense if she, at the same time that Nord Stream 2 was build, had intentionally prepared Ukraine for war.â
/- As a leader of a country in the Occupied Empire, even if she didnât want that, she had the Collective responsibility of making it happen, just as the U.K. and other owned assets were âduty boundâ to do. She is admitting exactly the position of the West -/
âRussia has used the time since to prepare for even harsher sanctions and a war. Notice how little problems Russia has now after really crushing sanctions were deployed. That required preparation. â
/- Russia has done it by building the alliances, strengthening the SCO, and by fighting the Propaganda War and winning it across the World. They are actually very good at shuttle diplomacy, rigorous support including militarily, beating western PMCâs at their own game and by gaining the moral high ground through the SMO action and by such a declaration at this time by Angela-/
âIn 2018 Russia introduced a number of superior strategic weapon which are now deployed. In 2014 the S-400 air defense system was only a prototype. Today all Russian air defense groups have and deploy it. Russia used the time to up its war supplies, especially artillery ammunition and missiles.
Who has used the time better? Who is now in a better position?Â
Who has used the time better? â
/- who? The Multipolar new order has.
It is born through this âwarâ-/
âThe problem with Merkel’s sorry and false excuse is that it creates, as Korybko points out, real damage. â
/- damage against the lying empire in the eyes of the world as she âspills the beansâ on the intent of these inside the tent pissing out on the rest of the world-/
âEveryone, including Russia’s president Putin, seems to read only that one paragraph â
/- mission accomplished, Mutti has confirmed the Empires duplicity in the eyes of the world that the Collective Waste canât be trusted.
Saudis seem to have agreed, as does the queue of these wishing to join the SCO and get away from the Dollar Hegemony and its countless bases-/
âPutin now says he had believed in Merkel’s seriousness about Minsk. He is now deeply disappointed. Who can he talk to about peace when everyone one on the other side is non-agreement capable?â
/- THAT is so that everyone can see the nasty Collective Waste wants to keep the rest of us majority down, best if we stick together and donât let them bully us anymore, we can protect ourselves, see? -/
âWas it Merkel’s intent to undermine trust? â
/- HELL YES, in the Collective Wasteâs dying Empire and its Propaganda and systems of control, financial, military and controlled media -/
âI don’t know. Why would she?
I hope that Putin will still read the interview in its full context and change his mindâ
/- I hope itâs these of us, who donât believe that we are the bad guys , who change our mind, because the rest of the world already has-/
Posted by: DunGroanin | Dec 10 2022 7:22 utc | 220
@ abrogard | Dec 9 2022 21:49 utc | 87
Respectfully, you yourself are conflating short hand references commonly used re THE USA. Re The State, Executive Government, Congress, it’s Military, Agencies & Institutions, overt & covert factions & power politics players, etc within with … THE American people, citizenry. Your conflation & projected mis-attribution.
Agree fully with moral disgust & human degradation re your post, yet, only US citizens, no foreign power, is ultimately able to determine the nature & acceptance of its own government, leaders, & most importantly not the mere words but deeds & actions of, its policies. US citizens are just as responsible as the ‘Good little Germans’, ‘or Japs’ or ‘Barbarian Hordes’ or ‘Merciless Vikings’, etc, the responsibility cannot be denied, disowned or cast-off, to create a faux equivalence deniability escape clause to salve ones conscience or wounded humanity.
The Russian Federation Executive Government, for example, reflects the will & desires of its citizens re the war in Ukraine via its conduct & actions. Where was & is the ‘Shock & Awe’, routine & utterly indifferent mass indiscrimate destruction & slaughter ?
The annihilation of the city of Raqqa, Wikileaks ‘Collateral Murder’, the ‘School of the Americas’ & the Shahs ‘SAVAK’, Le Mays & McCarthurs genocidal psychopathy, legalized Torture, extra-legal & extra-territorial routine daily assassinations & murders globally, ~200,000-1,000,000 murdered non-belligerent Phillipino’s, & all that followed re Imperial policy with the determined intention to become sole global hegemon, thence The Sole Remaining SuperPower, & now never accept even trivial change in that status, going back 124 years at least ?
‘Tis reflective & representative of what ? Acceptance or indifference ? By whom ?
Between 1898 & 1902 dwindling to extinction in 1920, the USA openly publicly vigorously debated foreign Imperialism & the consequences to the nation thereof, The People made their choice & was formalized in State doctrine, Policies & Law. The American Anti-Imperialists League, including the likes of Mark Twain, lost the national debate.
That is the road We have traveled to come to where we are today. We the People.
Peace.
Posted by: Outraged | Dec 10 2022 7:52 utc | 222
|
