Question:
A remarkable acceleration has been observed in the communications of Merkel and Hollande with Putin, followed by their arrival in Minsk alongside the President of Ukraine. After their meeting, they reached an agreement in Minsk providing for a ceasefire in eastern Ukraine starting Sunday, 15/02/2015, and the establishment of a demilitarized zone. The Minsk agreement stated that the Ukrainian authorities and the rebels in the east have two days after the ceasefire to begin withdrawing heavy weapons from the front line, allowing for the creation of a buffer zone extended to seventy kilometers on both sides of the front line. What made Europe—"France and Germany"—scramble to contact Russia to conclude a political agreement in Ukraine without even mentioning Crimea, when it had previously stalled such an agreement until the issue of Crimea was guaranteed to be discussed? Furthermore, why did the British Prime Minister not participate with them? Why did the United States show disapproval of this agreement? And what is expected regarding its implementation? Please excuse the length of the question, and may Allah reward you with goodness.
Answer:
To ensure the picture is clear and to reach the correct answer, we note the following:
The general policy of the United States is for Ukraine to remain a hotspot of tension on Russia’s flank, used as a means of pressure or blackmail to make Russia a frontline for the US in several international issues, such as Syria, the Iranian nuclear deal, and the like. Europe did not oppose this general policy because it did not see it leading to a war or something resembling a war in Europe with Russia. The events in Ukraine continued in this manner: skirmishes between the separatists and the Ukrainian army, and silence regarding Crimea... things were moving between low-level escalations that Europe did not see as heating the atmosphere to the point of ignition.
However, matters have arisen recently. The US was not pleased with this continued calm through calculated skirmishes in Ukraine, especially as international issues escalated. Pressure and blackmail against Russia do not produce results if Russia's flank "cools down." Consequently, the US moved to heat the situation in Ukraine. It began by declaring that it would support Ukraine with advanced weaponry and that Ukraine could potentially join NATO. This was in addition to conducting some armed exercises near Russia's vital sphere. This provoked Russia, which began escalating its military movements near Ukraine and intervening with the separatists, even if not officially declared, in addition to its heated rhetoric.
Some media outlets reported that US Secretary of State Kerry visited Kyiv while Putin was meeting with Merkel and Hollande to discuss the political agreement. During his visit to Kyiv, Kerry was discussing Washington providing Kyiv's forces with lethal weapons—knowing that those meeting in Minsk opposed this. Also, Al-Hayat reported on its website on Friday, February 6, 2015: "...Washington announced it would provide Kyiv with urgent aid worth $118 million, allocated for training Ukrainian forces and providing equipment including protective uniforms, military vehicles, and night vision devices..." Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich responded that "supplying Kyiv with advanced American weapons not only threatens to escalate the conflict but also the security of Russia, whose territory has been shelled by the Ukrainian army several times." He warned that "taking a decision of this kind would cause severe damage to Russian-American relations," etc.
This is in addition to statements by American officials regarding the issue of Crimea and that Russia's annexation was an act of aggression. In a statement on Monday, February 9, 2015, US President Barack Obama issued a warning to Russia regarding the conflict in Ukraine, considering that Moscow has no right to "redraw the borders of Europe by force of arms." This is a clear reference to the issue of the Crimean Peninsula, which was dropped from the agreement concluded in Minsk. Naturally, this statement stirs a heated fire toward Russia because it considers Crimea part of its territory, making the significance of this statement equal to—if not greater than—American statements about arming the Ukrainian army, etc.
- Europe, particularly Germany and France, took American statements seriously. Therefore, the two countries hurried to declare that they were against supplying Ukraine with weapons because this could lead to a war in Europe.
In her speech before the Munich Security Conference held from 6/2/2015 to 9/2/2015, Merkel rejected the idea that sending American weapons to Kyiv would contribute to resolving the conflict, saying: "A better-equipped Ukrainian army will not convince President Putin that he will lose militarily, while Europe wants to strengthen its security in cooperation with Russia, not against it." Similarly, German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen warned during her speech at the opening of the annual International Security Conference in Munich that the West sending weapons to the Ukrainian army "could fuel the conflict in Ukraine because it adds fuel to the fire and takes us further away from the required solution."
France acted similarly. Al-Quds Al-Arabi reported on 07/02/2015: "French President François Hollande expressed his belief that the initiative is one of the last chances." Hollande continued, saying that without a compromise solution or a lasting peace agreement, the scenario is known "and its name is war." Hollande added that it was clear to him that the trip with German Chancellor Angela Merkel to Kyiv and Moscow was difficult and adventurous "but it was necessary." Hollande explained that he and Merkel see that "the specter of war is knocking on Europe's doors." French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius—whose country is making mediation efforts—also considered that "no one wants to fall into the trap of a total war, and no one has an interest in it, and it is time to make choices," stressing that what Germany and France want to achieve in Ukraine "is not peace on paper, but actual peace."
Europe (France and Germany) feared that this heated development in the US positions would lead to an escalation of Russian military actions toward Ukraine. Consequently, Europe would be embarrassed if it did not stand by Ukraine's side, resulting in a war or semi-war in Europe, while this war would not affect the US. This was an urgent reason for Europe to change its policy of complying with the US in Ukraine. It decided to contact the Russian President to find a political solution and block the path to any heated escalation between Europe and Russia. This is what happened. European leaders (France and Germany) discussed this matter and agreed on it on 6/2/2015. Then Merkel went to Washington on 8/2/2015 to inform Obama of this matter, not to seek his permission. It was clear that Europe, for the first time, finalized a matter before taking the green light from the US. The working paper was agreed upon and approved by the three leaders—Vladimir Putin, Angela Merkel, and French President François Hollande—on Friday, 06/02/2015. All that remained was to invite the Ukrainian parties (the President and the rebels) to sign it, then Merkel went to Washington to inform Obama!
This position by France and Germany greatly affected Obama and his administration. This caused verbal altercations at the Munich Summit between Kerry and Merkel, especially regarding US statements about supplying Ukraine with weapons while Europe rejected it. Al-Hayat reported on its website on Sunday, February 8, 2015: "The International Security Conference in Munich witnessed a sharp verbal 'exchange' between the Germans and the Americans regarding Washington's intention to arm Kyiv's forces to fight the pro-Moscow separatists in eastern Ukraine. This reflected a lack of transatlantic consensus on how to confront Putin in this conflict." In a subsequent speech at the Munich Conference, US Senator Lindsey Graham praised Merkel's interest in the Ukraine crisis but added that "it is time for the Chancellor to wake up to the reality of Moscow's aggressions." He continued: "Our European friends can go to Moscow until they become frustrated because it will not work; we must confront what has become a lie and a danger."
However, despite all this, Europe remains a significant friend of the US. But this friend saw the fire approaching her and rushed to extinguish it without asking the friend's permission, thinking she would be excused! It seems this was feigned; Obama and Merkel confirmed in a press conference following their two-hour meeting on Monday, February 9, 2015, that "Russia's aggression in Ukraine has strengthened our unity, and we will not stand neutral." Obama said: "In the event that diplomacy fails this week, I have directed my team to develop other options, including arming." He added: "There is no military solution, but the goal is to change Russia's calculations, noting that I have not made the decision yet." Merkel stuck to giving diplomacy a "last attempt" before studying other options and considered that "the US-European alliance will remain strong and will continue regardless of our later decision." As is apparent, the rope between them has not been cut, but it is not stretched strongly; rather, in the statements of some American officials, there is a hint of mockery, as in the aforementioned US senator's statement.
We conclude from all the above that the reason for the sudden shift in European policy toward Russia regarding the Ukraine issue is the considerations mentioned above, even though Europe magnified the danger. Thus, it approached the agreement rushing, even though its terms were in Russia's favor, to the point that it did not address the issue of Crimea. This was clear in Merkel's answer to a question addressed to her on this subject. She replied to the effect that the issue of Crimea does not concern her; rather, the important thing is to reach an agreement! Her literal answer was: "I will not occupy myself with issues related to territories. It is the task of every country to manage these negotiations itself, and I am not traveling with the French President to Moscow as neutral mediators. The matter concerns the interests of France and Germany and, above all, the interest of the European Union." It is worth mentioning that whether the US mentions Crimea or not, and whether Germany and France mention Crimea or not, none of them care about Crimea except to the extent that it achieves a colonial interest for them according to their capitalist concept.
As for why the British Prime Minister did not participate with France and Germany, it is because Britain's position is as usual: one foot here and the other foot there! While British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond described the Russian President as "acting like a tyrant" regarding Ukraine, noting that Kyiv's forces cannot defeat the Russian army on the battlefield, making a political solution the only option to prevent bloodshed. Hammond also stressed "that his country does not plan to arm Kyiv's forces..." Here, he is pleasing Europe.
However, in another statement, he said that Britain would review its previous decision in which it announced it does not plan to arm the Ukrainian army to help it fight the separatists, which is what the United States wants. Al-Hayat reported on Wednesday, February 11, 2015, that British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond told Parliament: "We cannot allow the collapse of the Ukrainian forces," adding: "Providing lethal weapons to Ukraine is a national decision for each country in the North Atlantic Alliance (NATO), and we do not intend to do that, but we reserve the right to review our position." Thus, he left the door "ajar"; he does not intend to, but he might change and then intend! Here, he is pleasing the US so as not to clash with it, and this is Britain's known position in recent times. Accordingly, the British Prime Minister did not join Merkel and Hollande.
- As for what is expected, the US will likely create several problems to prevent its implementation, as it has followers in Ukraine. Although President Poroshenko is close to Europe, the US has a share in him. Consequently, it can tension the situation through one of three things or all of them:
- Supplying Ukraine with advanced weapons.
- Or negotiations with it to bring it into NATO.
- Or mobilizing some of its men in Ukraine.
This would then cause the agreement to fail, because each of these three provokes Russia, affects the events, and leads to failure.
Russia may seek to enter into talks with the US on this issue, as it realizes the weight of the US in the matter. Therefore, previous reports indicated that Russia preferred talks with the US instead of talks with Europe, but the rush to contact Russia came from Europe, not from Russia.
- This is what is expected. As for us, we only care about Crimea in this matter. It is a Muslim land where we lived together for long centuries. Were it not at the heart of the events, the conflict between the US and Russia would not be of great concern to us. Crimea followed the Khilafah for centuries until Russia invaded it and the Western countries conspired with it, annexing it in the late eighteenth century, even though Crimea had been an Islamic emirate since 1430 CE. Then it became a Wilayah of the Ottoman Khilafah in 1521 CE during the era of the flourishing Khilafah until the Russians and the Kuffar nations conspired against it and managed to separate it from the Ottoman State in 1783 CE. They committed crimes and massacres there that even beasts would shrink from. Then they annexed it to Russia, which changed the name of its capital from Aq Masjid, meaning the White Mosque, to the current name Simferopol. For your information, Crimea (Qirim) means the fortress or the stronghold in the language of its people, the Muslim Tatars. Thus, Crimea was Islamic for about three and a half centuries before its occupation by the Russians! Therefore, its permanent stability lies in its return to its origin as an Islamic Wilayah in the coming Khilafah, Insha'Allah.
We do not forget Crimea or any Islamic land occupied by the colonial Kuffar, no matter how much time passes or how long it takes.
تِلْكَ الْأَيَّامُ نُدَاوِلُهَا بَيْنَ النَّاسِ
"And these days [of varying fortunes] We alternate among the people." (QS Ali 'Imran [3]: 140)
وَلَتَعْلَمُنَّ نَبَأَهُ بَعْدَ حِينٍ
"And you will surely know [the truth of] its information after a time." (QS Sad [38]: 88)