“The Minsk agreements, negotiated over two rounds in September 2014 and February 2015, were supposed to signal the way out of the ‘Ukrainian crisis,’ in which Russia-backed separatists sought to overrun eastern Ukraine and bring it under Russian sovereignty. The problem is that what’s happening isn’t a crisis of Ukraine’s making but the result of military, economic and political aggression against it from Moscow. …

“The Minsk agreements contain requirements for both the Ukrainian side and the separatists and Russia. These encompass matters of security such as the truce, the withdrawal of heavy armor, and open access to members of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). There is also a political dimension, which calls for decentralization and the holding of local elections. But how can we push for political reforms and decentralization when Russian military equipment is still in the streets of Donetsk and Luhansk, and when international monitors have no access to these territories? How can we ensure that commitments will be kept when the aggressor isn’t even acknowledged as a party to the conflict? In a word, how can we guarantee the conditions to implement the Minsk agreements? The first step must be to ensure security through a true ceasefire. …

“It is unrealistic to demand elections when the only ones enjoying freedom of movement and access aren’t Ukrainian political parties, Ukrainian media or the Ukrainian people, but Russia-supplied tanks. …

“Moscow’s formula of ‘borders mean nothing, people do’ may initially sound very European, but in reality it undermines international law. The occupation of Crimea is a proof of that. Only after security conditions are in place can we focus on constitutional reforms and decentralization.”

– Lithuanian Foreign Affairs Minister Linas Linkevicius, writing in the Wall Street Journal on January 27 in an op-ed headlined “Security Before Politics in Eastern Ukraine.”