All the more remarkable is her admission that the Minsk agreement served to buy time for Ukraine’s rearmament. “It was clear to all of us that this was a frozen conflict, that the problem had not been solved, but that is precisely what gave Ukraine valuable time,” Merkel told Die Zeit.
Previously, the Minsk agreement, which Merkel signed together with then-French President François Hollande, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and Russian President Vladimir Putin in September 2014, had been portrayed as an effort towards peace that the Russian president had allegedly later thwarted.
Now, Merkel confirms that NATO wanted war from the start but needed time to prepare militarily—an assessment WSWS has long held.
Russia negotiated in good faith while NATO never had any intention of honoring negotiation terms agreed by Ukraine.
Yes quite literaly if NATO stayed the fuck out of Ukraine there wouldn’t be any war, literaly once again, they purposedly broke the agreements which were meant to prevent war and de-escalate.
Minsk 1 was in 2014.
Then there was a second Minsk agreement in 2015.
Please for the love of god don’t parachute into this war as if history began in February 2022 I beg you.
From where any logical and sane person is sitting, only one side commited a historical blunder of actualy admitting to the media that the Donbas war was a “frozen conflict” when in reality there were already peace agreements between both sides.
Go complain to Merkel for making you look bad. You don’t have to believe in Russian good faith if you don’t want to, all that is necessary is to admit the actual reality of what happened and what was admitted by the west already.
All Russian negotiations rely on the agreement for Ukrane to give up a part of invaded lands. That is not going to happen, especially after Crimea in 2014. Russia has no claim to the lands and any negotiations that require them are a joke.
If Russia is not stopped no agreement will be final, it’s all about the ambition to rebuild the Soviet Union and “compromise” won’t do it.
Of course NATO will not directly engage in this war (as sad as it is), that would result in WWIII. It is convieniet for NATO nations that the conflict is in Ukrane, but that does not change the fact Ukrane needs and is getting support indirectly, because NATO has an interest in Ukrane winning.
Comparing that to China’s “priority” for infrastructure in the original post is at best unfair. And while arms racing in general is not a good thing, the original post lumps that together with support for Ukrane. That is the message I take issue with.
All Russian negotiations rely on the agreement for Ukrane to give up a part of invaded lands. That is not going to happen, especially after Crimea in 2014. Russia has no claim to the lands and any negotiations that require them are a joke.
What are you even talking about? Seriously what part of terms agreed by Ukraine you didn’t understand? Please for the love of god actualy read about the stuff you’re commenting before replying, thank you.
Comparing that to China’s “priority” for infrastructure in the original post is at best unfair. And while arms racing in general is not a good thing, the original post lumps that together with support for Ukrane. That is the message I take issue with.
Okay, that’s a fair point.
If Russia is not stopped no agreement will be final, it’s all about the ambition to rebuild the Soviet Union and “compromise” won’t do it.
But what evidence do you have to support this? We have a short and long term history to look at showing NATO going back on their promises, lying, sowing chaos. Russia by comparison has been reliable. Isn’t the fair thing then to try to make the compromise survive as long as possible? Because the alternative to compromise is people dying. Even if it’s none of your friends, surely you don’t want Russians dying either, right?
Are you aware there not one but two previous attempts at negotiations that Ukraine purposedly sabotaged on their own? Are you even aware Merkel literaly admitted the Minsk agreements were merely attempts to buy time and prepare Ukraine for war.
You can read the terms here
Russia negotiated in good faith while NATO never had any intention of honoring negotiation terms agreed by Ukraine.
Yes quite literaly if NATO stayed the fuck out of Ukraine there wouldn’t be any war, literaly once again, they purposedly broke the agreements which were meant to prevent war and de-escalate.
Minsk 1 was in 2014. Then there was a second Minsk agreement in 2015.
Please for the love of god don’t parachute into this war as if history began in February 2022 I beg you.
Ah yes. The famous Russian good faith and NATO forcing their hand into genocides.
From where any logical and sane person is sitting, only one side commited a historical blunder of actualy admitting to the media that the Donbas war was a “frozen conflict” when in reality there were already peace agreements between both sides.
Go complain to Merkel for making you look bad. You don’t have to believe in Russian good faith if you don’t want to, all that is necessary is to admit the actual reality of what happened and what was admitted by the west already.
Russia will not invade another country, right?
Say, can you tell me why Russia “invaded” Ukraine and not any of its other much weaker neighbors? I bet you think the conflict started in 2022
All Russian negotiations rely on the agreement for Ukrane to give up a part of invaded lands. That is not going to happen, especially after Crimea in 2014. Russia has no claim to the lands and any negotiations that require them are a joke.
If Russia is not stopped no agreement will be final, it’s all about the ambition to rebuild the Soviet Union and “compromise” won’t do it.
Of course NATO will not directly engage in this war (as sad as it is), that would result in WWIII. It is convieniet for NATO nations that the conflict is in Ukrane, but that does not change the fact Ukrane needs and is getting support indirectly, because NATO has an interest in Ukrane winning.
Comparing that to China’s “priority” for infrastructure in the original post is at best unfair. And while arms racing in general is not a good thing, the original post lumps that together with support for Ukrane. That is the message I take issue with.
What are you even talking about? Seriously what part of terms agreed by Ukraine you didn’t understand? Please for the love of god actualy read about the stuff you’re commenting before replying, thank you.
Okay, that’s a fair point.
But what evidence do you have to support this? We have a short and long term history to look at showing NATO going back on their promises, lying, sowing chaos. Russia by comparison has been reliable. Isn’t the fair thing then to try to make the compromise survive as long as possible? Because the alternative to compromise is people dying. Even if it’s none of your friends, surely you don’t want Russians dying either, right?