NICHOLAS SHUBITZ: Minsk deal deception hinders Ukraine peace settlement

The Bush administration’s lie about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction was not the first time an untruth precipitated an avoidable war. Otto von Bismark edited a telegram to incite war with France in 1870, the Mukden incident led to the Second Sino-Japanese War, and the Gulf of Tonkin incident saw US troops deployed to Vietnam.

Perhaps the most theatrical example occurred in 1788, when King Gustav III of Sweden ordered the head tailor of the Royal Swedish Opera to sew fake Russian uniforms for his soldiers to wear during a false flag attack on a Swedish border town, which resulted in the Russo-Swedish War.

Such incidents are not uncommon in the history of Western civilisation. We’ve been warned about “Greeks bearing gifts” since the fall of Troy. And yet it still comes as a surprise when European politicians are discovered to have misled their counterparts.

This was certainly the case when respected former German chancellor Angela Merkel indicated in a recent interview that France and Germany never expected the Minsk II agreement to hold. A few weeks later former French president François Hollande made statements to the same effect.

The former heads of state now claim that Minsk II, ostensibly designed to ensure a lasting peace in Ukraine, was actually meant to buy time for the Ukrainian army to become better equipped in the event of war with Russia.

The admission might delight those eager to believe Merkel outsmarted Putin, but it plays straight into the hands of the Russians, who claim they had no other choice but to invade Ukraine because Nato and the West cannot be trusted.

The interpretation of Merkel’s admission is certainly up for debate. Admired for her pragmatism, she was known to be a staunch supporter of the Nord Stream pipelines, and Germany would be in a much stronger economic position today had the Minsk agreements been properly implemented.

It may simply be that in the current European political climate the former chancellor must avoid being seen as having been too soft on Russia. Nevertheless, her recent remarks have far-reaching consequences for international relations and the prospects of a negotiated peace in Ukraine.

Revenues up

Western politicians have found isolating Russia more difficult than anticipated. The Brics bloc has maintained ties with Russia, as have many other developing countries, especially those dependent on imports from Russia. As the second largest exporter of oil and world’s largest exporter of wheat and natural gas, Russian commodities have proven indispensable to global food and energy markets. 

In fact, Russia’s oil revenues were up 30% last year despite sanctioned Russian crude grades trading at steep discounts to Brent. The world’s largest country has replaced Iraq as India’s top oil supplier, and Saudi Arabia as the number one oil supplier to China. Meanwhile, Chinese and Indian small and medium-sized enterprises are rapidly replacing European exporters in Russia’s domestic market.

Perhaps surprisingly, trade between Russia and the EU has increased too. Former Belgium prime minister Guy Verhofstadt recently tweeted a chart showing that Russia-EU trade grew dramatically in 2022, leading him to describe the effect of the sanctions against Russia as “less than zero”.

Sanctions simply disrupted efficiencies in energy markets, driving up prices and increasing the dollar value of Russia-EU trade. Combined with higher demand for commodities during the post-lockdown recovery, this has been a boon for Russia. At the same time, higher prices have made discounted Russian crude more attractive to India and China, securing the alliance of two major trade partners.

There are also political reasons why Russia is difficult to isolate, especially from the perspective of Brics and other emerging markets. The ANC has been aligned with Moscow since the Cold War and the same can be said of India. Russia is India’s major arms supplier, with a factory in Uttar Pradesh having just started producing the latest Kalashnikov rifles for the Indian army.

While Russia and China were never historical allies, simultaneous vilification by the US has brought them closer together. As the US shifted from supporting to constraining the rise of China, it was inevitable that Beijing would seek closer ties with Moscow, especially considering that Russia possesses vast resources China’s industrial base will depend on for decades to come.

Controversial comments

Croatian President Zoran Milanovic says Nato is fighting a proxy war against Russia; and Beijing, despite calling for negotiations to end the hostilities, has also blamed Nato for stoking the conflict. Merkel’s recent admission about the sincerity of Minsk II muddies the waters and lends credibility to this version of events.

Controversial comments from European leaders foment cynicism, especially among Africans, who already possess a degree of distrust towards the former colonial powers. When EU high representative for foreign affairs Josep Borrell makes overtly racist remarks about the EU being a “garden” and the rest of the world a “jungle” this further alienates Africa, especially considering the civil war in Ethiopia has not attracted the same degree of media attention as the war in Ukraine.

It has also not gone unnoticed that African and Middle Eastern immigrants fleeing war zones have not been afforded the same privileges extended to their white counterparts.

The Brics and other former colonies recall Russian support for their independence movements and argue that cutting themselves off from Russian commodities would be self-defeating. In light of recent remarks from European leaders (and considering the fact that Russian LNG shipments are still flowing to Europe) perhaps the neutral stance of these non-aligned countries is justified.

The gravest consequence of Merkel’s admission is that it makes a negotiated settlement far less likely. Both sides are pushing for total victory on the battlefield at extraordinary cost in dollars and lives. All wars end with some kind of agreement, but considering the loss of trust between the parties it seems both sides will seek to dictate terms rather than settle on a life-saving compromise.

• Shubitz is an independent Brics analyst.