Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is what happened in WW2. Nobody was willing to negotiate with Hitler because it was apparent that he was utterly untrustworthy, as evidenced by his repeated aggressions through the 30s before WW2 finally broke out. It's the same situation here. Nobody can possibly trust Putin. He's utterly untrustworthy and any treaty would presumably just be breathing space and time for Russia to continue building up its forces…
"nobody can trust Putin" - it was admitted both by Merkel, and by another high ranked politician whose name I do not remember at this moment that the goal of Minsk agreement was not to give autonomy to Donbass, which did not accept ukranian nationalism, but to buy time for Ukrainian army to rearm. So I think you are confusing things.
"I thought that the introduction of NATO accession of Ukraine and Georgia, discussed in 2008, was wrong. The countries did not have the necessary prerequisites for this, nor was it fully understood what the consequences of such a decision would have been, both with regard to Russia’s actions against Georgia and Ukraine, as well as NATO and its rules of assistance. And the Minsk Agreement of 2014 was an attempt to give Ukraine time.
Ukraine used this time to become stronger, as you can see today. The Ukraine of 2014/15 is not the Ukraine of today. An illustrative example was the battle for Debaltseve. At the beginning of 2015, Putin could easily have overrun them at that time. And I very much doubt that the NATO countries could have done as much then as they do today to help Ukraine."