Friday, July 10, 2015

National Interest: Yes, Minsk was meant and even framed as unilateral capitulation; since the truth is out and it has been resisted, it needs to be completed

Here is a retrospectively honest and correct summary of the political meaning of Minsk 1 by the National Interest: "The original Minsk protocol collapsed primarily because it did not give the separatists any means to achieve their objectives. While it promised local elections within the Donetsk and Lugansk regions, the agreement failed to give the separatists any real authority over the border with Russia or a say in Ukraine’s alignment with NATO."

The National Interest also admits that, as Minsk 1 and 2, stands now it does amount to a "unilateral surrender": "It is imperative then, that western leaders focus not on demanding the implementation of Minsk II, but rather on using its framework to complete further negotiations, which should have occurred in February. Until the details can be agreed upon, insisting that either side subscribe to the current protocol is tantamount to asking for a unilateral surrender."

The National Interest then concludes by asking "to save the Minsk 2 Agreement" (see the article's title), deciphered as unilateral capitulation, through more negotiations, in which the truth of what Minsk is and which has already come out (before the National Interest admitted the truth and not thanks to the National Interest) would have been secured and "completed."

No comments:

Post a Comment