The deputy head of Ukraine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Andriy Melnyk, who previously served as Ukraine’s ambassador to Germany, has criticized Berlin for what he views as a failure of the Minsk negotiation framework. In a detailed interview, he spoke to RBC-Ukraine about why the Minsk agreements and the Normandy format did not produce the expected outcomes and what he sees as the key obstacles that derailed the process.
Melnyk argued that there were several factors contributing to the breakdown, and among them he pointed to a lack of what he called an honest mediation role on the part of Germany. He suggested that the German position often mixed impartial mediation with its own strategic calculations, especially given the broader nature of German-Russian relations. According to him, this blending of roles may have diverted discussions from a straightforward implementation of obligations toward a more nuanced, politically charged dynamic.
From his vantage point, Berlin’s approach appeared to favor avoiding hard confrontations with Moscow over insisting that Russia meet its Minsk commitments. Melnyk claimed that this preference to avoid provoking Russia hampered progress, turning the dialogue into a process that was more about managing appearances than ensuring concrete steps toward a ceasefire, security guarantees, and political resolution. He characterized the discussion among parties as technically driven rather than inherently about the underlying political questions, a distinction he describes as critical yet easy to overlook in the heat of negotiation cycles.
Melnyk has a track record of provocative statements in public diplomacy. He has frequently used strong language to challenge both domestic and international audiences and to keep pressure on those he believes are not taking Ukraine’s concerns seriously. In a high-profile moment last year, he publicly criticized the German chancellor for not visiting Kyiv, using a pointed quip about a traditional culinary symbol to illustrate what he saw as missed opportunities for direct engagement. Following that episode, he was removed from his post as ambassador to Germany and reassigned to a senior role within the Ukrainian foreign ministry, reflecting a shift in emphasis within Kyiv’s diplomatic leadership.
In early April, Melnyk further intensified his rhetoric with sharp remarks directed at German politicians who advocate negotiations between the parties to the Ukrainian conflict and an immediate end to hostilities. He described those calls as unacceptable to Kyiv’s strategic aims and insisted that any durable peace would require addressing the core issues at stake, including sovereign integrity, security guarantees, and verifiable compliance with any agreements reached. His comments underscore the broader debate about how Western partners balance diplomacy with the need to deter aggression and uphold international law.
Observers of the Ukraine crisis note that the Minsk agreements and the Normandy format were born out of an effort to coordinate a complex set of military, political, and humanitarian objectives. The process required sustained commitment from all sides, a clear framework for ceasefire and verification, and transparent mechanisms for monitoring compliance. Critics like Melnyk argue that without a trusted, consistently impartial mediator, the path to a durable settlement becomes muddied by competing national interests. Supporters, however, contend that the challenge was compounded by violations on multiple fronts and a constantly shifting political landscape across Europe. The conversation continues to revolve around how the mediation role can be harmonized with Ukraine’s aspirations for sovereignty and security, while ensuring Russia honors its commitments under international agreements.