• carl_marks[use name]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    They also used the time to become stronger. But that was not the goal of Minsk.

    Yea it was to bring peace. Why would you want “to become stronger”, when part of the peace agreement was to become a buffer zone to NATO? Why else would the Russians else have signed it? How do you explain that with Merkel saying that it was just to buy time? Wouldn’t the Russians feel betrayed/played if it wasn’t implemented for peace, but just to stall them?

    • wagnerst@lemmy.wtf
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      I did not get your point. Even with a treaty in place, why would Ukraine not trying to become stronger with the Russian threat? Again, Merkel says quite clearly IMHO that it was for not escalating the conflict to get to peace, possibly then integrating Ukraine in the EU or NATO.

      • carl_marks[use name]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        Even with a treaty in place, why would Ukraine not trying to become stronger with the Russian threat?

        Because “getting stronger” in this context means militarily. Why would you want to bolster your military, when the Minsk treaty guarantees safety from russia? Not implementing the treaty and continued prospect of joining NATO, bolstering Ukraines military antagonized Russia, as they saw that the Minsk agreement got ignored. Merkel admitting that it was just to buy time, proved the Russians right.