3 teachings from the Ukraine Russia armistice for peace

The Proposal for a weapon arrest has been accepted, a plan belongs to a plan, as US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said: "To end this conflict in a permanent and sustainable way."

risks for Ukraine

This proposal carries considerable risks for Ukraine. In the last peace agreement with Russia ten years ago, which was signed in February, there was only sporadic outbursts of violence and growing distrust, which ultimately resulted in a comprehensive war.

Experience with former peace agreements

"I informed President Trump about it," said Ukrainian President Wolodymyr Selenskyj last month in an interview with the CNN branch CNN Turk. "If you can get Putin to end the war, that's great. But you know that he can cheat. He was so deceived at the time, after the Minsk creation."

The MINSK agreements-the first agreement was signed in September 2014, and when this failed, only five months later a second below the name Minsk II-should end a bloody conflict between the armed forces and separatists in the areas of Donetsk and Luhansk in the east of Ukraine. Russia's Vladimir Putin and the then Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko were signatories, as were the OSCE.

Missing implementation of the MINSK agreements

The agreements have never been fully implemented, and the Violence Flarete again and again in the seven years.

Now that Ukraine and its allies are aiming for a new peace, experts warn that the failures of Minsk are a warning for today's peace brokers and that the risk of repeating history is obvious. Here are some teachings that we can draw from the past:

1. Military strengthening Ukraine is crucial

in 2015, western military aid for Ukraine was minimal and was largely limited to non-fatal relief goods, although the Obama government also defensive military equipment delivered . "The crisis cannot be solved militarily," said Chancellor Angela Merkel at the time in a speech Security conference 2015, which coincided with the talks about Minsk II. Your assessment was clear: "It is uncertain whether you will be successful."

It did not help that both MINK agreements were signed directly after or during significant military defeats in Ukraine.

2. No quick solutions

experts agree that the Minsk agreements were hastily put together when violence escalated. Johannes Regenbrecht, a former German official who was involved in the negotiations, pointed out in a current paper In February 2015 they were at the point that they were fell. Letting Russia continue to continue freely in the actual separation of the eastern Ukraine under Moscow control.

3. Pay attention to the wrong narrative

In the end, the biggest problem with the MINSK agreements, especially Minsk II, was not what was in the text, but what was not mentioned. There was not a single reference to "Russia" in the entire text , although there was clear evidence that Russia broadcast both the separatists and troops.

"Everyone knew that Russia was involved, but this was not recognized for reasons of negotiation," said Dumoulin. "The agreements were based on the fiction that the war between separatists took place in Donetsk and Luhansk and Kiev and that it was ultimately a domestic conflict."

The failed MINSSK agreements leave no doubt about the risks associated with the adherence to such false statements. At that time, the fiction meant that Russia was not an aggressor or partisan conflict, together with insufficient pressure on Moscow in the form of sanctions and the provision of deadly military aid for Ukraine that Minsk did not ultimately address the root of the conflict.