"International news in recent days prompt writing a series of posts with a quote from a classic as an epigraph: "Це ж вже було!" (This has already happened!).
There's a lot overlaying. 10 years of Russian aggression. 9 years of "Minsk-2." Two years of full-scale invasion. Plus, a milestone NATO summit on the horizon.
Let's start with Lavrov's emphatic statement about allegedly being ready to seek a political-diplomatic solution if the "realities on the ground" are taken into account (i.e., the occupied territories officially become part of Russia).
This talk of readiness for negotiations is a traditional deception by Russia to divide those who support Ukraine.
Because this has already happened. It was called "Minsk-2."
I've been observing the "Minsk process" a bit in 2020 - early 2022 (especially during the period of "reintegration"). So there's something to remember.
I won't give an assessment of the "Minsk-2" fact itself - it's impossible to cover all aspects on FB. Plus, any evaluation is an insult to the feelings of one or another group of political believers, which will divert from the essence.
Essence:
- "Minsk-2" was violated by Russia directly at the moment the agreements were reached (the issue of Debaltseve and others);
- "Minsk-2" was systematically violated by Russia during the dialogue (the Kremlin tried to pretend that these were agreements between Ukraine and the "L/DNR," although it was clearly written that the TCG includes Ukraine, Russia, and the mediator - OSCE, and the "Minsk process" itself is a logistical platform of the "Normandy format": Ukraine, Russia, Germany, France);
- "Minsk-2" was formally terminated unilaterally by Russia.
Since these were disadvantageous agreements for Ukraine, it is absolutely normal that our country sought the least destructive way to approach this issue. Especially since the texts of the documents contained many contradictions.
In the Kremlin, "Minsk-2" was seen as a torpedo against Ukrainian statehood and as a way to exclude Crimea from discussions. The interests of Donetsk/Luhansk were not considered at all.
Western intermediaries pretended not to understand the Russian plan and demanded that Ukraine fulfill what was technically impossible to fulfill (this is how the text of the "Minsk Protocol" and the "Package of Measures" for its implementation were drafted). Not to mention the possible political consequences. That is, they were directly proposing capitulation.
Then these leaders, with varying degrees of zeal and sincerity, began to repent. Some have not repented even now, but have lost their former pathos.
The question of negotiations with Russia (regardless of the topic) is a question of guarantees of compliance with agreements. It's a question of coercion.
In Europe and the USA, quite a few people have already accepted that negotiations with the Kremlin without guarantees of compliance are just a way to give Moscow a respite and allow it to accumulate resources for new acts of aggression. And since there will be no talk of punishing the aggressor in principle, this is the perfect incitement to new wars.
Dialogue about guarantees is not standing still, but everyone sees how the system of collective security of democratic countries (NATO and related structures) is feverish due to the US elections. Therefore, Moscow is dangling the word "negotiations" to lure actors willing to cling to the illusion of certainty.
If the advocates of dialogue with Moscow fall for this bait again, the consequences will be for the whole world. Because everyone with eyes can see: politicians living by electoral cycles are afraid to show will, unable to draw conclusions, and act effectively in the long run. Even the most devastating nuclear bomb weighs more than all the words of the greatest "guarantors." And it is easier to interact with people who do not play democratic games but move towards the set goal. Very tempting.
Dealing with all this will be much more expensive in the long run."
