Germany’s NTV has published a remarkable interview with Andrij Melnyk, formerly Ukraine’s ambassador to Berlin, now Brazil. As the outlet notes, in his former position, he “pulled out all the stops to rouse the Germans” from their inaction on Russia’s invasion, “and vehemently and tirelessly demanded arms deliveries.” Fast forward to today though, and he’s calling for a swift end to the conflict via diplomatic means. Whether that’s remotely realistic at this stage, of course, is a different matter entirely.

In conversations with NTV, Melnyk proposed settling the conflict, rapidly approaching its second anniversary, via a renewed Minsk Agreement, “of all things…despite all the problems.” It’s a stunning volte face for a politician primarily known in Europe “for his vehement calls for large-scale arms deliveries.” Now, he demands Germany to do “much more” to support Kiev “diplomatically”, while acknowledging that since February 2022, a diplomatic component to ensuring peace in Ukraine has been “virtually absent” from the West’s consideration.

While admitting “he could not say with what specific goal talks with Russia should be sought,” Melnyk also acknowledged, “no one in Ukraine wants to fight this war to the last soldier.” For Kiev, “it is about preserving our statehood” - “that is the be-all and end-all.” It is “not enough” for German Chancellor Olaf Scholz to simply claim “he tried” to speak to Russian President Vladimir Putin - Melnyk advocates Berlin’s elected representatives meet their Kremlin counterparts in person:

“Why shouldn’t Mr. Scholz meet with Putin? Maybe you don’t have to invite him to Germany for a beer or fly to Moscow yourself. But also in the Cold War there were meetings, in Iceland for example, where people talked behind closed doors…The world must now think about how to find access to the Russian leadership. Putin sees himself as the stronger one who can gain the upper hand.”

Melnyk favours “a strategic diplomatic initiative” to counter Russia, involving the Global South “more closely”. This would require “major powers” such as the US, Germany and Britain, “but also China, perhaps Brazil,” to “not to wait to see how the big battle will turn out, but to take action themselves.”

‘Lessons Remain’

In this context, Melnyk recalled how then-German Chancellor Angela Merkel and then-French President François Hollande worked to broker the Minsk Accords in February 2015. While conceding this blueprint was “very difficult and probably not appropriate,” he nonetheless spoke warmly of how the agreement “stipulated in black and white that Moscow would have had to return all the occupied territories in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions by the end of 2015.”

In addition, Melnyk nostalgised, Minsk gave Ukraine “seven years to become stronger - strong enough to be able to better fend off Russia's current large-scale aggression.” He rued how a “more preventative rearmament…unfortunately didn’t happen,” stating, “the lessons remain.” Lessons do indeed remain - and the Ukrainian diplomat’s comments amply indicate they have not been learned in the halls of power in Kiev. And no doubt Berlin, Paris, London, and Washington.

For one, Melnyk’s charge that Minsk afforded for Moscow’s “return” of “occupied territories” to Ukraine is completely false - not least because the Accords did not recognise rebel-held areas of Eastern Ukraine as “occupied” by Russia. This was a bogus allegation concocted by Western-backed nationalists in Kiev, to justify their refusal to implement Minsk’s terms. While Russia was a signatory to the Accords, this was as a “mediator” not “party” to the conflict in Donbas.

From the moment Minsk was signed, Ukrainian and Western officials did everything in their power to sabotage and delay its implementation. One of their key methods was claiming Russia had in fact invaded the country, the Kremlin just refused to admit it. They argued this made Moscow an active “party” to the conflict, and Minsk therefore needed to be renegotiated and restructured accordingly. A French-brokered February 11th 2022 peace summit collapsed explicitly due to Kiev’s contingent demanding Russia be designated as such.

Moscow consistently refused these requests, as contrary to mainstream media narratives, it was not a belligerent in the Donbas conflict. While some Russian citizens did travel to Ukraine to support the rebels, they did so on their own initiative, without the Kremlin’s direction or permission. A 2019 report from Soros-funded International Crisis Group makes clear Russian government support for the rebels was extremely modest, and begrudging. Putin did not wish for the breakaway republics to secede from Ukraine, let alone be united with his country.

There were multiple contemporaneous indications that claims of Russian “invasion” following Maidan were fraudulent. In October 2015, Vasyl Hrytsak, then-director of the Ukrainian Security Service, admitted just 56 Russian fighters had been documented there. Three years later, Alexander Hug, deputy head of the OSCE’s observer mission in Ukraine, was asked by Foreign Policy magazine for his agency’s “official stance on Russia’s involvement.” He said they had seen “no direct evidence” of this at all.

That excerpt was later updated. Hug revised his answer to say OSCE observers had in fact witnessed “convoys” of an indeterminate nature “leaving and entering Ukraine” at night, “specific types of weapons,” alleged Russian prisoners in the custody of Ukrainian forces, and individuals wearing jackets “with the insignia of the Russian Federation.” He nonetheless stressed these could be bought “anywhere”, and he’d also seen military garments bearing the insignia of “Germany, Spain, and others” in Donbas.

One can’t help but wonder if these extremely slim pickings were subsequently served up to Foreign Policy under duress from unknown actors. After all, Hug’s original, unrehearsed answer completely undermined the official position of multiple Western governments, militaries and intelligence services, Ukraine’s own, and the mainstream media. Had Russia been named a “party” to the civil war, Kiev could claim it had indeed been invaded, precipitating an all-out Western proxy war in Donbas, of the kind that erupted in February 2022.

Delusions Shattering Everywhere

Another benefit to obstructing Minsk’s implementation was, as Melnyk gushed, Ukraine was granted “seven years to become stronger” and fight Russia. In December 2022, Angela Merkel openly admitted that the Accords were never intended to succeed. The real purpose was “to prevent even worse things,” and provide Kiev with time to build up its military - a drunken, corrupt shambles in 2014 - while building up its stockpiles of Western weapons, vehicles, and ammunition. Whether this was purely intended for defensive purposes is an open question.

Merkel’s account has been confirmed by François Hollande. Commenting at the same time, he praised how “since 2014, Ukraine has strengthened its military posture,” and how the modern day Ukrainian army “was completely different from that of 2014…better trained and equipped.” He considered it the “merit of the Minsk agreements to have given the Ukrainian army this opportunity,” and also revealed the West likewise needed a “lull” to do the same. Again, was this purely defensive?

Whatever the truth of the matter, Hollande also then expressed optimism that something like Minsk could be agreed contemporaneously, and therefore end Russia’s Special Military Operation. Such remarks - along with Melynk’s similar hopes - palpably demonstrate the extraordinary delusion under which Western officials and their proxies in Kiev are operating. Considering the very figures who brokered Minsk have boastfully admitted they never intended to make good on their written and verbal pledges to Russian leaders, why would the Kremlin entertain a diplomatic settlement in Donbas again?

There shall be no Minsk 2.0. As Al Mayadeen reported on January 22nd, The Spectator’s Owen Matthews, a hardcore cheerleader for Kiev, has acknowledged that the war in Ukraine is already lost, this just can’t be admitted by Western officials. He did not consider that they may in fact not be able to see this irrefutable reality staring them in the face. Matthews lamented that the war would inevitably end with Ukraine’s partition, on Russia’s terms. That it will.