Through the Ashes of the Minsk Agreements

Lidia Powirska, a former member of the Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine, reflects on the Minsk agreements and their failure to bring even temporary peace to the Donbas conflict. Just before the latest invasion of Ukraine, Vladimir Putin declared Donetsk and Luhansk provinces as independent republics and dismissed the Minsk agreements as defunct. These agreements, signed by Ukraine, Russia, the OSCE, and representatives from the self-proclaimed republics, were meant to end the separatist war in Donbas but failed to achieve peace.

Despite high-profile endorsements from world leaders, the Minsk agreements were insufficient and led to continued military operations in Eastern Ukraine, with both Ukraine and Russia blaming each other for non-implementation. The agreements lacked effectiveness due to the continued control of territories by one party using military force.

The Minsk agreements, both the 2014 Minsk Protocol and the 2015 “Minsk II”, were seen more as political commitments than legally binding documents. Russia's inclusion of representatives from the self-proclaimed republics was controversial and seen as a step towards legitimizing these entities. The first agreement included provisions for a ceasefire, decentralization in Ukraine, interim status for the self-declared republics, local elections, and improving the economic and humanitarian situation in Donbas. The line of contact established was fluid and often moved further into Ukrainian territory, illustrating the challenges of enforcing written agreements.

Despite the ceasefire agreement, low-intensity armed actions continued, leading to the second agreement, which placed more obligations on Ukraine, particularly concerning the “special status” of the self-proclaimed republics. This agreement required constitutional changes in Ukraine, subject to approval by the representatives of the self-proclaimed republics, potentially allowing Russia to influence Ukraine's legal order.

Disagreements over local elections and the conditions for holding them further complicated the situation, with the self-proclaimed republics holding unauthorized elections and undermining Ukraine's sovereignty. The Minsk II conditions, including the withdrawal of illegal troops and other fighters, were never fully met, maintaining Russia's territorial advantage.

The context and conditions at the time of the agreements’ signing greatly influenced their outcomes. For instance, the Minsk Protocol was signed amidst successful separatist offensives supported by Russian troops, and similar circumstances surrounded the signing of Minsk II. Russia's involvement was portrayed as that of a mediator rather than an aggressor, further complicating the situation.

Despite some implementation, like prisoner exchanges and OSCE monitoring, the Minsk agreements were largely unfulfilled. The ongoing conflict and the failure to implement economic and social reintegration measures led to the isolation and decline of Donbas. Ukraine's decision not to abandon these areas despite the challenges underlined its commitment to territorial integrity.

The agreements were signed under Western pressure to end the military conflict but did not address the deeper disagreement between Russia and Ukraine. The imposition of political and economic sanctions on Russia was linked to the full implementation of the Minsk agreements. For Russia, ensuring Ukraine's neutrality and decentralizing its governance were priorities, while Ukraine and the West focused on ceasefire and arms withdrawal.

The geopolitical implications of Russia's aggression were significant, stemming from Ukraine's pro-European aspirations. The situation in Ukraine has become a focal point in the rivalry between global powers, with the West maneuvering between crises and maintaining trade cooperation with Russia.

Current peace talks, mediated by Israel and Turkey, are discussing crucial points like Ukraine's neutrality and the status of Crimea and the self-proclaimed republics. However, the success of any peace agreement depends on the balance of power on the battlefield and the ability to negotiate terms before irreversible territorial gains are made by Russia.