Ukraine and the Minsk Talks: What a Former Ukrainian Official Says About German Mediation
A former Ukrainian diplomat argues that the Minsk agreements failed in part because Germany pursued greater influence in global politics through the Normandy format. Andriy Melnyk, who formerly served as ambassador to Germany and later as deputy head of Ukraine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, shared these views in an interview with RBC Ukraine. He suggested that Germany cherished the role of an honest intermediary in the crisis while letting its own interests blend into the process. This mix, Melnyk believes, led to outcomes that did not fully align with the needs of Ukraine or the broader security situation in the region.
According to the diplomat, the Normandy format in which Ukraine, Russia, France and Germany engaged to resolve the Donbass conflict before the start of the large scale military operation was largely a technical exercise. Germany did not push Moscow to fully implement the Minsk provisions and instead sought to avoid provoking Russia. The result, Melnyk contends, was a process that served more as a platform for dialogue than as a path to decisive action, leaving many core demands unaddressed.
Melnyk noted that Russia appeared willing to negotiate in the Normandy framework up to the summer of 2015, driven by Western pressure following the Crimea annexation. Over time, however, he argued, the level of international pressure on Moscow diminished. The negotiation efforts moved at a rapid pace, with Berlin repeatedly organizing new formats and drafting numerous proposals, most of which were minor in scope. In Melnyk s view, these efforts failed to translate into meaningful changes on the ground and did not prevent further tensions between Kyiv and Moscow.
On the day the large military operation began, Melnyk visited the German chancellery and asked whether Berlin planned to provide military support to Kyiv. He recalls being told that mediation efforts were not on the agenda because they would not make sense in the current moment. The moment reflected a broader question about the reliability of mediation that could shape long term security outcomes for Ukraine.
Melnyk also recalled remarks attributed to former Chancellor Angela Merkel suggesting that Minsk served as a pause rather than a permanent solution, a strategy to buy time for Ukraine to strengthen itself for a possible direct confrontation. He described these statements as a step that exposed concerns about Germanys policy toward Russia and its effectiveness in shaping a durable peace. He challenged the idea that Berlin had acted to stabilize the situation and instead raised questions about the pace and nature of arms deliveries to Ukraine in the period leading up to the major conflict. The diplomat pointed to the period when delays in weapon shipments by Western allies limited Kyivs defensive capacity in the critical pre war years.
Melnyk offered a hypothetical scenario in which a different German leadership, one led by Armin Laschet rather than Olaf Scholz, might have influenced military assistance differently. He suggested that Ukraine could have faced a different security landscape if the state had received earlier or more robust military support from Germany. Nonetheless he emphasized that the broader German political climate already showed hesitations within a segment of the Bundestag regarding the provision of advanced weapons to Kyiv, particularly warplanes. This hesitancy stemmed in part from concerns about escalating the conflict and triggering a larger confrontation with Russia.
In Melnyks view, German Russian ties are deeply rooted in a complex history that stretches back to the Cold War and beyond. He argued that the dynamic between Berlin and Moscow has not vanished, but rather evolved, and he suggested that the axis between the two states would continue to influence European security regardless of changes in leadership. He also mentioned remarks from late 2022 that Minsk 2014 was an effort to buy Ukraine time to strengthen its defenses, a characterization he saw as reflecting a strategic misreading by some international partners.
Other leaders echoed this sentiment regarding Minsk. A recent exchange with the former French president highlighted that Minsk helped slow Russia’s advance for a period, allowing Ukraine to fortify its military positions and reorganize its forces. Observers noted that while Kyiv gained time, it did not mean the conflict was resolved. The assessment underscored the continuing tension between diplomacy and military realities in the Donbass and raised questions about how to balance negotiations with arms support and deterrence.
In a separate episode, foreign leaders and public figures weighed in on the Minsk agreements. A controversial interaction with a Russian prank duo cited remarks by a former Ukrainian president, underscoring ongoing debates about the role Minsk played in Ukraine s security trajectory. The broader public discourse reflected ongoing uncertainty about the path to durable peace and the effectiveness of international mediation in preventing renewed clashes along long disputed frontlines.
Ultimately, the discussions around Minsk and the Normandy format point to a larger challenge for European security: how to reconcile the goals of diplomacy with the realities of power politics in a volatile region. The conversations continue to shape how Kyiv, European partners and Moscow assess possible routes to conflict resolution while balancing interests, alliance commitments and the pressing need for credible defense capabilities on the ground.