I don't know if Mutti was lying then or if she's lying now but either way she is the liar that tied Germany to Russian oil & gas and imported a few million immigrants who can't find work in an economy that desperately needs skilled workers.
She also oversaw the energy transition, Energiewende, that has cost at least $800 billion-equivalent just for the subsidies. You can add in the $500 billion-equivalent that is being spent for the current energy emergency and she is the second worst Chancellor the Germans ever had.
First up, naked capitalism, December 15:
Hungary Asks the War Questions and Probes Merkel’s Minsk Deception
Yves here. Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel stated in two recent interviews that she had supported the Minsk Agreement, designed to resolve the conflict in Donbass, merely to buy time for Ukraine to arm. Some commentators, like Alexander Mercouris and Bernhard at Moon of Alabama, take the view that Merkel was sincere at the outset but lacked the courage to arm-wrestle the US, and so came to fall in with the US/UK maximalist position. They further contend that Merkel is now claiming to have been duplicitous from the get-go so as to remove any taint within Germany as to have formerly been willing to accommodate Russia.
Below you will see John Helmer takes a much harsher position.
Note that Helmer also brings up an idea he discussed in a post, that of settling the conflict by establishing a very large demilitarized zone (which might be not too hard implement and maintain if Russia deprives it of all electricity). While that is a possible outcome, I suspect Russia’s end game for Ukraine has now become fluid and very path-dependent. For example, Scott Ritter argued in a recent talk that Russia is managing the conflict so as to avoid formal NATO participation. The concern is that NATO simply cannot tolerate losing to Russia, which seems like an inevitable result given Russia’s advantage in manpower and materiel, as well as having large battle-seasoned forces. But NATO cannot tolerate a defeat, so Russia believes NATO would escalate to tactical nukes, which = end of the world as we know it.
Having said that, at this juncture Ukraine tactics are favoring Russia’s desire to slowly bleed NATO. Ukraine is continuing to pour troops and weapons into Bakhmut to be destroyed. The leak that the US will be sending Patriot missiles to Ukraine is arguably another favorable development. Admittedly, foreign personnel will have to operate the air defense system, but that has been true with the HIMARS too (as in the US and NATO are escalating by not hiding their role). However, the Patriots are not expected to prove all that effective (see Brian Berletic for details) and they are in very short supply. The more the US and NATO deplete their weapons stockpiles while fighting can be presented to the Collective West as mired in Donbass, the better. However, once Russia has gotten the Ukraine military to the point of collapse, it presumably will start making advances in Ukraine. That will be undeniable on a map and will pressure Western leaders to Do Something....
....MUCH MORE
As we've said before, Helmer advertises himself as the longest-serving Western journalist in Moscow which is a bit of a red flag. He obviously, at minimum, knows the lines he can't cross. On the other hand there is no way he is as biased as the New York Times' Walter Duranty whose Pulitzer the Times refuses to return despite irrefutable proof that Duranty was acting as Stalin's mouthpiece.
So there is that.
It's not just Hungary raising questions:
Merkel’s Remarks on Minsk Accords Cast Events in Ukraine in New Light: Serbian President
And Pennsylvania's The Intelligencer flat out prints: "GUEST Implementing Minsk II agreement could have prevented Russia's invasion".
And of course Merkel's duplicity leaves an opening for China who jump right in:
Real intention behind Minsk agreements further destroys credibility of the West
