Jul 11, 2023 6 min read

Who Walked Away From The 2022 Russian-Ukraine Draft Peace Treaty?

By VT - Philippa Jane Winkler - July 10, 2023

A timeline reveals a pattern of sabotage and aggression. Last June, seven African leaders met with President Putin in Moscow. They were on a peace mission to end the Ukraine war which has severely disrupted food and fertilizer deliveries to their countries.

The delegation consisted of Presidents Macky Sall of Senegal, President Azali Assoumani of Comoros Islands, Hakainde Hichilema of Zambia, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, Egypt’s Prime Minister Mostafa Madbouly as well as top envoys from Uganda and Gambia.[i] The delegates had also met with President Zelensky in Kiev.

What Putin told the African representatives came as a surprise. He said that Moscow and Kyiv had talks face to face, mediated by Turkey, in the Spring of 2022. It had been agreed that Ukraine should remain neutral and Russia withdraw its troops from Kyiv.

The ‘Treaty on the Permanent Neutrality and Security Guarantees for Ukraine’ was signed by both parties, said Putin. It looked like peace might have broken out.

What gave Putin hope that Zelensky might want a peaceful resolution? According to the Financial Times, there had been a concession made by Zelensky in May of 2022, in which Ukraine could consider a peace deal if Russian forces returned to positions in eastern Ukraine predating last year’s invasion. The issue of Crimea, it was suggested, would be resolved later through diplomacy.[ii]

After the talks, Zelensky accused Russia of breaking the terms of the treaty. His current position is to rule out peace negotiations until Russian forces leave all of Ukraine, including Crimea.

Putin told the African leaders, ‘After we pulled our troops away from Kyiv – as we had promised to do – the Kyiv authorities … had tossed [the draft treaty] into the dustbin of history. They abandoned everything.’

Video link:

The Western media barely reported on the Draft Treaty, but its existence is not in question by any of the parties involved.[iii]

Who sabotaged the 2022 Draft Treaty? Identifying patterns of disruption

Negotiations are usually conducted in secrecy. But we can identify patterns of behaviour and motivations by creating parallel timelines of what occurred and what should have occurred. From this interpretation, we can deduce which is the more aggressive state actor responsible for sabotaging peaceful solutions.

1992-2014 After the fall of the Soviet Union, the United States (US) seeks to increase its influence in former Soviet republics and Warsaw Pact countries such as Poland.

By 2007, the United States has provided more than $28 billion in aid, including ‘democracy assistance’ and promotion of ‘free market economies’ to the 12 states of the former Soviet Union.[iv]The US advocates for the anti-Russian, pro-Western ‘colour’ revolutions such as the “Rose Revolution” in Georgia (2003), the “Orange Revolution” in Ukraine (2004-5,) the “Tulip Revolution” in Kyrgyzstan (2010.)

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) continues to extend eastwards (see Map below.) This brings ballistic nuclear weapons closer to Russia’s borders.

In 2008, NATO promises membership to Georgia and Ukraine, countries with large Russian-speaking populations.

By 2014, there remains only three buffer countries between NATO missiles and Russia: Belarus, Georgia and Ukraine.

Russia repeatedly says it views these developments as a threat to its security.

What should have happened: US’ former foe Russia invited into a cooperative security pact with NATO countries. Eastern Europe countries join the non-aligned movement.

2014. Fearing that NATO missiles are now only minutes travel time away from its borders, Russia incorporates the Ukrainian region of Crimea, which has a seaport on the Black Sea. A referendum confirms that the majority of citizens in Crimea wanted Russian affiliation. Russia supports militias in the pro-Russian independence movements in Georgia and Eastern Ukraine.

The more NATO pushes against Russia’s borders, the more Russia pushes back.

What should have happened: The United Nations Secretary-General and non-aligned states arrange security guarantees in Eastern Europe independent of Russia and the US.

Map source: NATO: Why Russia has a problem with its eastward expansion – DW – 02/23/2022

In 2015 Russia and Ukraine sign the Minsk Accords whereby Ukraine would remain neutral and not join NATO. The Russian-speaking Donbas and Luhansk regions were to become autonomous in East Ukraine. NATO would withdraw missiles from Romania.

The map shows the buffer zone established by the Minsk Protocol follow-up memorandum.

As soon as the Minsk Accords are signed, the United States sends military equipment and training services to the Ukraine government. It was a spoiler act.

The fighting resumes. Obama lets lethal aid trickle in and, in 2019, Trump sends exponentially more. The Minsk Accords collapses. The US blames Russia for the breakdown of the truce.

“Germany will not support Ukraine with weapons,” said the German Chancellor Angela Merkel in 2015. “I am firmly convinced that this conflict cannot be resolved militarily.”[iii]

Years later Angela Merkle confessed backing the Minsk Accords in order for Ukraine ‘buy time’ to increase its military strength.

‘Speaking in her interview for “Die Zeit”, published on December 7, German ex-Chancellor Merkel said the following: “The 2014 Minsk Agreement was an attempt to buy time for Ukraine. Ukraine used this time to become stronger, as you can see today. Ukraine in 2014-2015 and Ukraine today are not the same.” According to the ex-Chancellor, “it was clear for everyone” that the conflict was suspended and the problem was not resolved, “but it was exactly what gave Ukraine the priceless time.”’[v]

What should have happened: The Minsk Accords implemented and not used to buy time until the US could arm the Ukrainian government.

Political Gaslighting [vi]

The US justification for NATO expansion and military intervention is that it is Russia who is waging a war of expansion, with the end goal of threatening all of Europe. Under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2021 was illegal. Ukraine did not commit an armed attack against Russia.

But there has been a serious provocation, a threat of an attack. Opportunities for peace have been sabotaged. The Western media keeps gaslighting Russia, by referring to Russia’s ‘unprovoked’ war.

Since 2015, the US has committed $40-70 billion worth of arms to Kyiv, prolonging the war to the last Ukrainian. The real motivation as the Pentagon says, is to ‘weaken Russia.’

It’s part of a longer-term strategy to ‘over-balance’ and ‘over-extend’ Russia, considered a US peer rival in many key areas. This is a similar pattern to the US policy to drag out the 1980s Afghanistan war by arming the Jihad, a policy that led to the rise of the Taliban. This is the ‘enemy of my enemy is my friend’s strategy. Similarly, Western military aid is aiding the fascist elements in the Ukraine government.

Zelensky applied for NATO membership last September. Biden says it doesn’t want Ukraine to enter NATO because that would mean direct confrontation with Russia, but promised more military and economic aid, including cluster bombs.

The Non-Aligned Movement as a conduit for peace?

Russia continues to pound Ukrainian cities and communities. The victims of this NATO/Russia proxy war are innocent civilians and young soldiers in both countries, their deaths yet to be counted.

The war impacts poor countries deprived of Ukrainian grain and fertilizers. It has brought the world closer to nuclear conflagration. It has contributed to rising costs of food and energy in the West. It reveals the incapacity of Big Powers to resolve differences without resorting to war.

What should happen now: The free flow of necessities such as energy, grain and fertilizers should be restored immediately.

Most countries in the non-aligned movement except for Singapore, have not imposed sanctions on Russia. The movement is neutral, talks to both sides and therefore is best positioned to mediate a negotiated end to the war.

Resources and Citations

This article was based on Substack article 24/06/2023 and updated 28/06/2023. Geopolitics: It’s not Rocket Science | Philippa Jane Winkler | Substack.