That's a great question.
I don't feel that you can look on a binary success or failure for the treaties. The Minsk II treaty is still an important element of keeping the conflict in eastern Ukraine from becoming a war. We can look at it on a scale, and there could be much larger levels of fighting. There could actually be things like missiles and other forms of weaponry used. By moving it down on the scale through political means, I think Minsk II actually does help the process. I still support it, although I see that it has built-in mechanisms that are bound to fail. There are so-called poison pills in the Minsk II agreement.
I would like to see the agreement better supported, with the OSCE doing better monitoring and a UN force positioned in the Ukraine. The major dilemma or the decision point is on how far the UN force would be extended. If it went all the way to the Russian border with Ukraine, Russia would very much object. They would like to have the ceasefire line now become frozen so that they can solidify control in the Donbass region. We have to make sure, in my opinion, that it actually respects the territorial integrity of Ukraine and that a peacekeeping force does cover all of the Ukrainian territory.