Das setzt aber voraus, auch zu sagen, was genau die Alternativen damals waren. Die 2008 diskutierte Einleitung eines Nato-Beitritts der Ukraine und Georgiens hielt ich für falsch. Weder brachten die Länder die nötigen Voraussetzungen dafür mit, noch war zu Ende gedacht, welche Folgen ein solcher Beschluss gehabt hätte, sowohl mit Blick auf Russlands Handeln gegen Georgien und die Ukraine als auch auf die Nato und ihre Beistandsregeln. Und das Minsker Abkommen 2014 war der Versuch, der Ukraine Zeit zu geben.
The article is still quite disingenuous as Merkel insists several times in the original interview that it was to prevent war and to find a peaceful solution over time.
Of course, everyone is the hero in their own story and she basically just repeats the old “if you want peace, prepare for war” axiom instead of reflecting on the fact that she played quite a role in propping up the Russian mafia state for short term national benefits.
She pretty clearly states that the purpose of Minsk was to provide Ukraine with more time to arm in preparation for the war. The events since Minsk clearly demonstrate that peace was never the intent.
She clearly states that if Russia had attacked in 2015 (not an unlikely scenario without Minsk), Ukraine would have had no chance to defend itself, and the above mentioned doctrine says that you need to be able to defend yourself to prevent war.
I personally don’t agree with this purely militaristic view, but I think you either have problems with your translation or are misconstructing what Merkel actually says.
The context here is that the civil war in Ukraine was a direct result of the 2014 coup that was sponsored by the west. Minsk was meant to provide Donbas with autonomy from the right wing extremist government the west installed in Ukraine. As I’ve already explained, the actual events clearly show that peace was not the plan. Whether intentionally or not, Merkel confirms that she did not see Minsk agreements as a way to create peace in Ukraine. Instead, she saw it as a way to freeze the conflict and for the west to pump weapons into Ukraine, which is what happened.
What you write about what Merkel says is simply not true, in the interview she insists several times that it was exactly to create conditions so that peace could prevail.
We can have long discussions about what other actors in this conflict intended to do or how to interpret various facts, but that is another topic all together.
Merkel contradicts herself in the interview. However, there is no other way to interpret the comment that she was playing for more time given what we know today. The actions of the west prior and after Minsk are very much part of the same topic because these actions tell us what the intent actually was and which of the statements made by Merkel are truthful.
Crap comment, the article clearly links to Der Spiegel interview. Work on your reading comprehension. https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/angela-merkel-raeumt-versaeumnisse-bei-den-verteidigungsausgaben-ein-a-317df943-e5d3-42f2-b0cf-6c0a73e10802
In fact, she’s given multiple interviews https://www.zeit.de/2022/51/angela-merkel-russland-fluechtlingskrise-bundeskanzler/komplettansicht
The article is still quite disingenuous as Merkel insists several times in the original interview that it was to prevent war and to find a peaceful solution over time.
Of course, everyone is the hero in their own story and she basically just repeats the old “if you want peace, prepare for war” axiom instead of reflecting on the fact that she played quite a role in propping up the Russian mafia state for short term national benefits.
She pretty clearly states that the purpose of Minsk was to provide Ukraine with more time to arm in preparation for the war. The events since Minsk clearly demonstrate that peace was never the intent.
She clearly states that if Russia had attacked in 2015 (not an unlikely scenario without Minsk), Ukraine would have had no chance to defend itself, and the above mentioned doctrine says that you need to be able to defend yourself to prevent war.
I personally don’t agree with this purely militaristic view, but I think you either have problems with your translation or are misconstructing what Merkel actually says.
The context here is that the civil war in Ukraine was a direct result of the 2014 coup that was sponsored by the west. Minsk was meant to provide Donbas with autonomy from the right wing extremist government the west installed in Ukraine. As I’ve already explained, the actual events clearly show that peace was not the plan. Whether intentionally or not, Merkel confirms that she did not see Minsk agreements as a way to create peace in Ukraine. Instead, she saw it as a way to freeze the conflict and for the west to pump weapons into Ukraine, which is what happened.
What you write about what Merkel says is simply not true, in the interview she insists several times that it was exactly to create conditions so that peace could prevail.
We can have long discussions about what other actors in this conflict intended to do or how to interpret various facts, but that is another topic all together.
Merkel contradicts herself in the interview. However, there is no other way to interpret the comment that she was playing for more time given what we know today. The actions of the west prior and after Minsk are very much part of the same topic because these actions tell us what the intent actually was and which of the statements made by Merkel are truthful.