![CrossMark Logo]({"type":"image" , "src":"/templates/jsp/images/CROSSMARK_Color_horizontal.svg"})
![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
![Banner advert for Taylor & Francis Editing Services]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110755/JournalAd_Announce_Editing_Services_Regional_English_SW.jpg"})
![Publish Open Access Finland]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110396/JournalAd-Announce-OA-Finland.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This article examines why the Minsk II Agreement has been unsuccessful in achieving sustainable peace and focuses on the conflict mediators’ role in overcoming the stalemate. Based on negotiation theory, the underlying issues and circumstances before Minsk II and during the implementation process until 2019 are identified. The article postulates types of mediation leverage to overcome the stalemate. The findings reveal that United Nations peacekeepers could change the stalemate under certain conditions, whereas sanctions would be unlikely to critically influence the bargaining position, and increased United States involvement could have an impact on the conflict resolution.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Note on contributor
Jakob Landwehr is a research associate at the Department of International Relations, Chemnitz University of Technology, Germany. His PhD research focuses on conflict prevention, analysis and resolution, as well as negotiation and mediation theory and the United Nations and regional actors.