On December 7, former German Chancellor Angela Merkel said in an interview with the German weekly Die Zeit that the reason why Germany facilitated the signing of the Minsk Agreement between Russia and Ukraine was to "give Ukraine time." , making the country stronger.
In this regard, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that it turns out that no one intends to implement the Minsk agreement.
"The Ukrainian leadership, as ex-President Petro Poroshenko said, also admits that they do not intend to act on what has been signed. But I still expect that the other players will have sincerity towards us. But it turns out that they Also lied to us, their purpose was to build up Ukrainian military forces in preparation for hostilities. Obviously, to be honest, we found our way too late. Maybe, we should have started everything (special military operations) earlier, but (In the past) we just hoped that a solution could be achieved (through diplomacy) within the framework of the Minsk agreements.”
Putin acknowledged that Merkel's statement was completely unexpected and disappointing.
"Frankly, I did not expect to hear this from a former Federal Chancellor, because I have always started from the assumption that the German leadership is sincere to us. Of course Germany is on the side of Ukraine and supports it, but in my opinion , the leadership of the Federal Republic of Germany has always sincerely strived for a solution based on our agreed principles, which were realized within the framework of the Minsk agreements.”
Putin pointed to the issue of trust on the negotiating agenda after Merkel made such a statement.
Putin emphasized, "I have said many times that we are ready to reach an agreement, we are open, but this (Merkel's remarks) makes us stop and think about who we are dealing with."
In short, Merkel's speech revealed that she had "played" Putin's trust, and Putin's response showed that she had indeed been "played".
However, from the perspective of real development, the deliberate "after the fact" of both parties is more out of political propaganda considerations than true self-confession.
In 2019, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky (first from left), French President Emmanuel Macron (second from left), Russian President Putin (second from right) and then German Chancellor Angela Merkel (first from right) held a summit on the situation in Ukraine in Paris.
(Getty)
Merkel hopes to save historic status
First of all, Merkel's so-called "Minsk agreement is to give Ukraine time" is obviously an adjustment of the focus of the discussion in order to save personal political reputation and reputation after months of public opinion siege and the discovery of a long-term trend of war.
After the Russian-Ukrainian war broke out in late February this year, Merkel has been deeply involved in the whirlpool of public opinion so far.
The West generally accuses her of "failure to appease". They believe that after the outbreak of the Crimean crisis and the civil war in Donbass in 2014, Merkel's Germany did not show a tough stance and punish Russia. Instead, it urged all parties to cease fire and negotiate. Invisibly acquiescing to the fait accompli of Russia's disintegration of a sovereign state, just like the 1938 British and French forces dominated the Munich Agreement in disregard of Czech resistance and acquiesced in the Nazi annexation of Czech territory.
Secondly, many continental European countries have accused Merkel of planning the "North Stream" pipeline. They believe that although Merkel's initial motivation was to use European-Russian energy cooperation to hedge the influence of the United States and achieve European autonomy, the result is that Europe's energy security is increasingly constrained. Moscow has indirectly led to the current energy and inflation crisis that is ravaging the world.
In short, in the eyes of critics, Merkel's "wrong decision" is responsible for the dire situation in Ukraine and Europe today.
From left, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Emmanuel Macron and Russian President Vladimir Putin attend a joint press conference after the four-party talks.
(Reuters)
However, in the face of the above-mentioned accusations, Merkel chose to defend herself.
On April 3, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky criticized Germany and France for opposing Ukraine's accession to NATO in 2008. Merkel then responded through a spokesperson on the 4th, "supporting her decision in 2008"; June Merkel said in an interview on the 7th that the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is a great tragedy. "I have tried to avoid disaster. If diplomacy is not successful, it is not wrong. I don't think I should say it is wrong now. I will not Apologize”; on September 27, Merkel called again, do not think that Putin’s nuclear threat is a bluff, and taking it seriously is not a sign of weakness, but a symbol of political wisdom, which will help preserve the space for action or formulate new strategies.
It can be seen from the above speeches that Merkel’s past defenses revolved around a core narrative: her highest goal is to avoid the outbreak of war and maintain the overall peace of Europe and Russia, even if the process may sacrifice some of Ukraine’s interests.
In all fairness, whether this proposition can be accepted by the public depends on the development of reality. Even if the Russia-Ukraine war breaks out, Merkel still has the opportunity to prove the legitimacy of her decision. The harm and cost can be controlled, and public opinion may regard the conflict as a short-term out of control, so Merkel's "considering the overall situation" will not be too abrupt.
However, the real development has gradually hollowed out the market foundation of this narrative. At present, the Russia-Ukraine negotiations are difficult to produce, and the war is endless. In the anti-Russian politically correct Western opinion field, it is difficult for Russia to shirk its responsibility for launching an offensive. Merkel's "failure to appease" is also to blame, and her energy policy during her tenure has also been affected.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel was born in East Germany and can speak fluent Russian. She is one of the few EU leaders who can maintain friendly relations with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
(Reuters)
In fact, as far as Merkel’s situation is concerned, no matter what her real plan for the Minsk agreement is, whether it is to freeze the conflict or let Ukraine grow stronger, as long as a full-scale war does not break out, she can avoid the siege of public opinion to the greatest extent; however, once a conflict breaks out , it will face the dilemma of substantively persuading peace according to the situation, or saving its own historical status.
Looking back at Merkel's statements in the past few months, it can be said that while saving her reputation, she is doing her best to maintain the stability of EU-Russia relations.
However, in the face of a protracted war, he also had to move closer to political correctness, shifting the focus of his discussion from "sacrificing part of Ukraine's interests for the sake of peace between Europe and Russia" to the hindsight of "we were prepared for the war" to resist dismiss external criticism of the "failure of appeasement".
In short, for Merkel today, whether she played Putin in 2014 is not the key point. The key is that in order to ease the fire of public opinion, she must convince the outside world that she has played Putin for many years, not Putin. .
Russian President Vladimir Putin has visited Berlin many times to discuss thorny issues with German Chancellor Angela Merkel on the situation in Ukraine, the conflict in Syria, and the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline project.
The picture shows on August 18, 2018, Putin (left) and Merkel held a press conference in Meseberg, a small town north of Berlin, the capital of Germany.
(Xinhua News Agency)
Putin is not naive
On the other hand, although Putin expressed shock at Merkel's speech, it was also a political stance that outweighed the truth.
First, from the perspective of the international public opinion game, no matter how much the anti-Western public opinion field defends Russia, from a global perspective, Russia’s rise to war is always at a disadvantage in public opinion.
Therefore, since the special military operation, Moscow has continued to advocate that NATO's eastward expansion threatens Russia's national security, that genocide in Ukraine has occurred, that Ukraine intends to develop nuclear weapons, and that the United States has set up biochemical laboratories in Ukraine, etc., in order to strengthen the legitimacy of its military deployment.
Now that Merkel made such a statement, it is tantamount to sending propaganda materials for Russia, so that the latter can seize the handle of "even Germany is playing with Russia" and shape the atmosphere of public opinion that war is inevitable and that the West also deliberately promotes. Downplaying Russia's aggressiveness can strengthen the situational depth of the "New Patriotic War" internally.
In short, it is about reinforcing the core narrative that "Russia was forced to do it."
Second, no matter whether the Minsk agreement is intended to be ready for action, or whether Merkel has played with Putin, if Russia really trusts Germany and would rather suffer a loss than abide by the Minsk process, the outcome will not be that it initiates a special military operation on its own initiative, but more likely Ukraine and NATO acted first, and Russia was forced to respond.
G20 summit in 2018: Putin (left) and Merkel (right) had breakfast, and the two talked about the recent maritime conflict between Russia and Ukraine.
(Reuters)
In fact, judging from the actual situation, since the signing of the Minsk agreement, Russia and Ukraine have not fully complied with the terms, and each has prepared for the war. Ukraine spent 8 years building a heavy line of defense in the Donbas region, and Russia also planned. Combat plans, and repeated drills on the Russian-Ukrainian border, and an ultimatum for negotiations was issued to Europe and the United States in 2021.
Judging from this result, the Minsk agreement is not so much a failed peace process as a "non-aggression treaty" destined to be torn up. Structural friction: NATO cannot promise not to deploy missiles in Ukraine and prevent Ukraine from joining NATO. The pro-Russian forces in Ukraine are also weakening. Russia cannot sit back and watch the Slavic civilization join NATO and completely fall to the Western camp.
The above-mentioned contradictions intensify as time progresses. As a result, both Russia and Ukraine use the time granted by the agreement to carry out military preparations, hoping to accumulate more battlefield advantages. In this way, even if they want to tear up the agreement in the future, they can tear it up on their own initiative.
Therefore, rather than saying that Merkel played with Putin, it is better to say that all parties had plans for each other long before the war.
Now that the war between Russia and Ukraine is unstoppable, Putin, who has been denounced as an aggressor, and Merkel, who has been ridiculed as a contemporary Neville Chamberlain, all intend to use the old topic of the Minsk agreement to stop the bleeding of public opinion, but they are helpless. settled.
Just as the Minsk agreement can truly persuade peace, it must face the structural friction between Russia and Ukraine, otherwise it will be reduced to a smoke bomb for the whole army; if the Russia-Uzbekistan war can be resolved through negotiations, unless either the West or Russia backs down , It is difficult to go to the blue sky.
Why did Merkel suddenly say that the Minsk agreement was to give Ukraine time to become stronger?
Hoping to salvage his image of a failed appeasement.
Why did Putin say that he was very disappointed with Merkel's speech?
It is necessary to strengthen the narrative that the West is obligated to the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
Polish missiles "tail wagging the dog": Ukraine is not too serious, and the United States and NATO are eager to settle the matter. NATO "opens the door" to Ukraine. Crimea is the key to breaking the situation. When Biden, Merkel and Zelensky mentioned " Nuclear war": who can stop Putin from pressing the button?
Merkel's call collided with the destruction of the Nord Stream, can European independence be saved?
Farewell to politics after 16 years in power What did Merkel leave behind?
