The head of the Federation Council committee, Andrei Klihas, stated that European politicians approached the Minsk agreements with the aim of arming Ukraine and preparing for a large-scale conflict. He argued that calls emphasizing the agreements’ role in peace were deceptive. He linked the discussions on constitutional law and state-building to interpretations of statements by Francois Hollande, the former president of France.
According to Klihas, for eight years European leaders have downplayed the Minsk agreements while extending sanctions on Russia, alleging a lack of progress in implementing the accords. He contended that these actions were intended to arm and train neo-Nazis in Ukraine and to prepare for a major war. He criticized what he called the cynical portrayal of European values, labeling them as lies, hypocrisy, double standards, and neo-colonial behavior that prioritizes power and exclusion over legality and sovereign rights.
He also argued that negotiations with Western partners after Hollande and Merkel’s admissions should not be taken seriously regarding the Minsk process.
As an example, he referenced a controversial moment in which the United States supposedly presented evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq. He suggested that similar assurances from European guarantors under Minsk would be viewed with skepticism given past experiences, casting doubt on the credibility of Western guarantees.
Historically, Minsk-1 was signed in 2014 and Minsk-2 in 2015 by the Trilateral Contact Group for resolving the conflict in southeastern Ukraine. The group included representatives from Ukraine, Russia, and the OSCE, with Germany and France playing roles in the 2015 negotiations. The agreements outlined ceasefire obligations, the withdrawal of heavy weapons from the contact line, and an all-for-all prisoner exchange. Most terms were not fully implemented, and both sides accused each other of violations. Later, it was alleged that the OSCE monitoring mission in the Donbass region cooperated with the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
“Secret Revealed”
Konstantin Kosachev commented on Hollande’s remarks via his Telegram channel. He claimed that the former French president’s confessions laid bare certain truths. He asserted that for the West, Ukraine’s integrity is framed as control over territory rather than popular consent, presenting lands rather than people, and viewing occupation as a form of governance rather than negotiation. This, in his view, clashed with what he described as European values distorted by Ukrainian geopolitics.
Kosachev argued that Russia acted as a genuine guarantor, attempting to fulfill all obligations outlined in Minsk on behalf of the people. He claimed that surrounding voices openly betrayed the southeast of Ukraine, a betrayal that cost thousands of lives over eight years of conflict. He stated that Western actions turned Minsk into a fragile pledge rather than a solid agreement.
In his assessment, the situation showed that the Minsk process was sabotaged by Kyiv and Brussels, leading to a scenario where Russia continued to defend the people in the regions by other means, given Kyiv’s stance and Western partners’ behavior in Minsk.
Donetsk and Luhansk declared independence following the 2014 upheaval, while Kyiv launched a military operation in response. Even after Minsk, hostilities persisted, and Moscow has repeatedly argued that Kyiv failed to comply with the agreements and prolonged negotiations in an effort to resolve the dispute.
Kosachev concluded that the ongoing turmoil reflected a broader pattern of misalignment between promises and actual commitments, with Russia portraying itself as a participant striving to safeguard the people in those regions. He suggested that Berlin and Paris had appeared to abandon their Minsk pledges, leading to a perception of betrayal and a more fragile peace process.
Merkel and Hollande’s Admissions
On December 30, Hollande conveyed in an interview that the Minsk agreements enabled Ukraine to strengthen its armed forces. When asked whether he agreed with Merkel’s assertion that the agreements froze the conflict and granted Ukraine critical time, Hollande affirmed that Merkel was correct, noting that the Minsk framework allowed Ukraine to boost its military position compared with 2014, which he viewed as a positive outcome of the accords.
Earlier, Merkel described Minsk as an attempt to gain time for Kyiv in an interview with a major publication. She indicated that Russia might have achieved a quick victory had that window not been seized by Ukraine’s strengthening, suggesting the time gained was factors in Ukraine’s defense. Putin later expressed disappointment in Merkel’s remarks, indicating surprise at the former chancellor’s statements and emphasizing a belief in sincere engagement from the German leadership in past years.
Overall, the discourse surrounding Minsk rests on contested interpretations of guarantees, the balance between sovereignty and security, and the perceived motives of Western partners in shaping the trajectory of the conflict in eastern Ukraine.