Minsk II Agreement Signed After Marathon Negotiations in Desperate Bid to End Donbas War

Marathon Negotiations in Minsk

MINSK, Belarus - February 12, 2015 - After exhaustive overnight negotiations lasting 17 hours, leaders of Ukraine, Russia, Germany, and France have signed a comprehensive agreement aimed at ending the escalating conflict in eastern Ukraine that threatened to spiral into full-scale war.

The “Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements,” known as Minsk II, was signed following the complete breakdown of the September 2014 Minsk Protocol and a dramatic escalation in fighting that brought Russian and separatist forces to the brink of major territorial gains.

The Negotiators

The agreement was negotiated by:

• Vladimir Putin (Russian President)
• Petro Poroshenko (Ukrainian President)
• Angela Merkel (German Chancellor)
• François Hollande (French President)

Additional representatives from the OSCE, and the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics also participated in the signing ceremony.

Crisis Leading to Negotiations

The talks became necessary after the complete collapse of the original Minsk Protocol signed in September 2014. By early 2015, the situation had deteriorated dramatically:

Debaltseve Offensive: Russian military units and separatist forces launched a major offensive on the strategic railway junction of Debaltseve in late January 2015.

Airport Battle: Separatist forces captured the symbolically important Donetsk International Airport on January 21, ending months of fierce fighting.

Military Escalation: Intelligence sources reported significant deployments of Russian regular military units to support the offensive.

Key Provisions of Minsk II

The 13-point agreement established a comprehensive framework for ending hostilities:

Security Measures

• Immediate ceasefire beginning at 00:00 (Kyiv time) on February 15, 2015
• Withdrawal of heavy weapons from the line of contact to create a security zone 50-140km wide
• OSCE monitoring of the ceasefire and withdrawal process
• Release of all hostages and prisoners within one month

Political Framework

• Constitutional reform in Ukraine providing for decentralization and special status for Donetsk and Luhansk regions
• Local elections in separatist-controlled areas under Ukrainian law and OSCE supervision
• Amnesty for participants in the conflict
• Restoration of Ukrainian control over the international border with Russia

There is a glimmer of hope, but it is a very fragile hope. A lot of work still lies ahead of us. The heavy weapons must be withdrawn and the ceasefire must be respected.

Implementation Timeline

The agreement established specific deadlines:

• Day 1: Ceasefire begins
• Day 2: Start withdrawal of heavy weapons
• Day 15: Complete withdrawal of heavy weapons
• Day 30: Release all prisoners and hostages
• By end of 2015: Constitutional reform and local elections

International Support

United Nations: The UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2202 endorsing the agreement, with all 15 members supporting the ceasefire deal.

European Union: EU leaders welcomed the agreement while warning that additional sanctions would follow if Russia failed to implement its commitments.

United States: Washington expressed cautious support while maintaining that sanctions would remain until full implementation.

Immediate Challenges

Even as the agreement was signed, significant obstacles were apparent:

Debaltseve Fighting: Combat continued around the strategic town despite the ceasefire, with thousands of Ukrainian troops effectively surrounded.

Territorial Control: Disagreement over which territories would receive special status and autonomy.

Constitutional Reform: The requirement for Ukraine to change its constitution faced strong domestic opposition.

Trust Deficit: Deep mistrust between all parties raised questions about implementation.

Russian Position

Moscow’s approach to the agreement reflected its complex role in the conflict:

Official Stance: Russia signed as a mediator, not as a party to the conflict, despite evidence of direct military involvement.

Separatist Support: Russian officials emphasized their “influence” over separatist forces while denying direct control.

Border Control: Agreement to restore Ukrainian control over the Russian border was conditional on constitutional reform and elections.

Ukrainian Domestic Opposition

The agreement faced significant resistance within Ukraine:

Parliament: Many MPs opposed constitutional changes granting special status to separatist regions.

Public Opinion: Polls showed majority opposition to autonomy for Donetsk and Luhansk.

Military: Some commanders expressed skepticism about separatist compliance with weapons withdrawal.

European Diplomatic Investment

The agreement represented the culmination of intensive European diplomatic efforts:

Franco-German Initiative: The “Normandy Format” established a mechanism for ongoing negotiations.

Economic Leverage: Threat of additional sanctions provided incentive for Russian compliance.

Monitoring Role: OSCE given expanded mandate to supervise implementation.

We have a deal. Now it’s up to everyone to implement it. We will meet again if necessary. War is not inevitable.

Long-term Implications

Minsk II established several important precedents:

Frozen Conflict Risk: The agreement’s structure raised concerns about creating a “frozen conflict” similar to those in Georgia and Moldova.

Constitutional Constraints: Requirements for Ukrainian constitutional change effectively gave Russia veto power over Ukraine’s internal reforms.

Territorial Integrity: The agreement attempted to balance territorial integrity with regional autonomy.

Assessment and Outlook

The Minsk II Agreement represented both hope and compromise:

Achievement: Provided framework for de-escalation after near-collapse into full-scale war.

Limitations: Complex implementation sequence created multiple points of potential failure.

Sustainability: Success depended on sustained political will from all parties.

The agreement marked a crucial moment in the Ukraine conflict, establishing a diplomatic framework that would shape negotiations for years to come, even as its ultimate implementation would prove elusive and the underlying tensions would eventually lead to the full-scale invasion of 2022.