Ceasefires aren't guesswork: Trump's Ukraine deal needs data, not bluster
Is there a secret formula for a successful ceasefire? That depends on how we define success. Is the aim to stop the fighting quickly, to build the foundation for lasting peace, or to avert a humanitarian catastrophe? Each outcome requires different priorities, and each should be shaped by evidence.
So far, Trump's negotiations — focused on land and power plants — have failed to address any of these goals. His demands were unlikely to secure a durable peace and unsurprisingly, the ceasefire collapsed in just 60 minutes, as Russia resumed strikes on homes, hospitals and power infrastructure.
Before attempting further talks, Trump needs to consult academia, experts in peacebuilding, international relations and, yes, even history.
Fortunately, we're not just flying blind. Academics and researchers have spent decades analysing peace and negotiations and identifying the factors that lead to sustainable outcomes. One report categorizes ceasefire success into two distinct criteria: the immediate objective and the underlying purpose. Trump's demands didn't align with either, and it showed.
The Ceasefire Project reviewed all ceasefires involving at least one state actor between 1989 and 2020. Their findings? Successful ceasefires typically have three things in common: a political process that addresses the root causes of the violence, a robust monitoring mechanism, and the ceasefire must last a minimum of 100 days. Trump's discussion with Russia's president didn't even address the first criteria, the underlying cause of the war (such as Ukraine's proposed NATO membership), and lacked any verification plan.
There's also no shortage of case studies specific to Russia. During the 2014 Donbas conflict, the Minsk Protocol created a ceasefire that satisfied many of Moscow's initial demands. Yet fighting resumed within weeks. Conversely, in the 2008 Georgia conflict, Russia accepted several structured terms to end hostilities, including humanitarian aid access, mutual troop withdrawals and the temporary presence of Russian peacekeepers, which in this case did prevent violence from resuming.
These details matter — they reflect a negotiated process, not a political stunt.
Ceasefires can also come with difficult trade-offs. In some conflicts, humanitarian access has been part of the negotiated pauses in fighting. For instance, in Sudan, a 2024 ceasefire allowed food and medicine to reach civilians displaced by conflict. But history shows this can be a double-edged sword. In the Angolan Civil War, a humanitarian pause enabled a successful polio vaccination drive, yet the same pause gave warring factions time to rearm. These examples don't define a ceasefire's success, but they do reinforce why careful planning and data must underpin every negotiation.
We use data and evidence to shape decisions in nearly every policy domain. Academics produce policy-relevant research, advise government agencies and contribute to policy debates. Researchers and academics advise the U.S. National Academy of Sciences's new pandemic committee, using lessons from the COVID-19 outbreak to guide future decision-making. Yet in war and peace, arguably the highest stakes arena, some leaders still rely on instinct over insight. That needs to change.
Ultimately, there isn't a one-size-fits-all approach for ceasefires, especially given Vladimir Putin's ideological and political motivations for invading Ukraine. Some even question whether peace is a real objective for him. But what we do know is that ceasefires that collapse in minutes cost lives. Every negotiation must be rooted in rigorous analysis.
The intelligence exists, so let's learn from it instead of repeating history.
Gilad Tanay is the founder and chairperson of research and consultancy firm ERI Institute. Previously, he co-founded and served as U.S. director of Academics Stand Against Poverty, an international nongovernmental organization. He also served as a lecturer and fellow at the Global Justice Program at Yale University.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
a few seconds ago
- Newsweek
Russia Reports Ukraine Military War Breakthrough Before Trump-Putin Meeting
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Russian forces are pushing hard in Ukraine's Donetsk region in the hope a breakthrough that can provide leverage in the summit between President Donald Trump and Kremlin Leader Vladimir Putin, the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) has said. Ukrainian sources reported sabotage and reconnaissance groups were infiltrating near Dobropillia which is northwest of Pokrovsk, the Donetsk hub that is key to Moscow capturing the whole of the region. The ISW said that Moscow is likely focusing on advances to coincide with Friday's U.S.-Russia summit in Alaska as a Newsweek map shows the front line's state of play. Newsweek has contacted the Russian Defense Ministry for comment. An image from June 19, 2025, shows Kyiv's troops in Pokrovsk, in Ukraine's Donetsk region. An image from June 19, 2025, shows Kyiv's troops in Pokrovsk, in Ukraine's Donetsk It Matters Anticipation is building ahead of Friday's summit and whether Putin will try to pressure his U.S. counterpart into accepting Moscow's control over partially occupied areas in exchange for a ceasefire, as has been reported. The ISW analysis suggests that Putin wants to leverage tactical pushes to seek U.S. concessions as he tries to frame the full capture of Ukraine's regions of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson oblasts as inevitable. What To Know The ISW assessed that Russian forces had likely recently seized settlements southeast and east of Dobropillia, as the think tank noted a claim by the Russian Ministry of Defense that Moscow's forces had seized Fedorivka, which is northeast of Pokrovsk. The think tank said it was premature to call the Russian advances an operational-level breakthrough, but Moscow would like to see it develop into one in the coming days. Russian forces used a similar tactical penetration in April 2024, and the coming days in the Pokrovsk area will be critical for Ukraine's ability to prevent accelerated Moscow gains north and northwest of the city, the ISW said. Geopolitical analyst Joni Askola said in an X, formerly Twitter, thread Tuesday that Russia's breach near Dobropillia was "timed for pressure," as Moscow attacked in multiple directions and was willing to take risks and losses to gain leverage before Friday's talks. Askola said that Ukraine faces command issues, low infantry numbers, poor coordination, limited resources—and a habit of delaying bad news. This breach is still small compared to past actual breakthroughs, but in today's war, it is big enough to matter and Ukraine has sent units, including from the 1st Azov Corps, to contain it, Askola added. The First Corps Azov of the National Guard of Ukraine said on Facebook that it had taken up defensive positions on the Pokrovsk front a few days ago as Russian troops advanced in small groups toward Dobropillia, bypassing the first line of Ukrainian positions. What People Are Saying The Institute for the Study of War said on Monday: "It is premature to call the Russian advances in the Dobropillia area an operational-level breakthrough, though Russian forces very likely seek to mature their tactical advances into an operational-level breakthrough in the coming days." Ukraine's First Corps Azov posted on social media: "The situation remains difficult and dynamic. The enemy, trying to advance on this front, is suffering significant losses in personnel and equipment." Geopolitical analyst Joni Askola wrote on X: "Russia's breach near Dobropillia—real, risky, and timed for pressure. It's not a collapse, but it's not nothing. It's important to neither under nor overestimate it." Askola added; "It's not too late—but it must be stopped before it grows." What Happens Next A statement by European leaders on Tuesday said borders cannot be changed by force, showing backing for Kyiv by its allies that any land swap for a ceasefire cannot be considered in Friday's summit, as has been previously reported. However the statement, which was notably not signed by Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orban, expressed support for Trump's efforts to end the war, but insisted "meaningful negotiations" could only begin with a ceasefire or a significant reduction in hostilities, and diplomatic pressure on the U.S. will likely continue in the coming days.
Fox News
a few seconds ago
- Fox News
CNN panel knocks 'look at the statistics' response from national Democrats on Trump's crime plan
A CNN panel suggested Monday that the "look at the statistics" response from some national Democrats on President Trump's crime plan might come across as "tone-deaf."
Fox News
29 minutes ago
- Fox News
Trump's earliest supporter announces bid for Alabama Senate seat
FIRST ON FOX: Another House Republican has their eyes set on a Senate seat in the 2026 midterms. Rep. Barry Moore, R-Ala., told Fox News Digital in an interview that he plans to run for Sen. Tommy Tuberville's seat in the upper chamber. Moore, who has represented the southern Alabama 1st congressional district since 2021, styled himself as a fiscal hawk with a longstanding history of supporting President Donald Trump. Indeed, he was the first elected official in the country to endorse Trump during his first run for office in 2015. "I think my number one job is to protect the people's liberty and to support the president in that process," Moore said. "And so, for us, it's an opportunity to continue to fight for the America First agenda, and also make sure we have conservatives in the Senate from Alabama that are truly the voice of the people." And one of his top concerns in Washington is the ever-increasing national debt, which has neared $37 trillion and counting, according to the Fox Business National Debt Tracker. One of his top priorities when helping to craft Trump's "big, beautiful bill" was to apply downward pressure on Congress' spending habits to achieve roughly $1.5 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade. "I think that we'll have to hold the line on spending," Moore said. "But again, this didn't get this way overnight. You're not going to fix it overnight. So you have to do it gradually." Moore, 58, is not alone in the race to replace Tuberville, who earlier this year announced that he would make a bid for the governor's mansion after serving only one term in the upper chamber. He joins Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall and former Navy SEAL Jared Hudson in the Republican primary. There are also a trio of candidates running on the Democratic side, including Kyle Sweetser, Dakarai Larriett and Mark Wheeler II. And despite his conservative bona fides — he is a member of the House Freedom Caucus and touted his deeply conservative voting record — Moore believed that the number one issue in the Senate, and Congress in general, is the growing partisan divide. He noted that when he came to Washington in 2021, he was disappointed that Republicans and Democrats didn't work together more in the lower chamber under former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "I think most people in D.C. are principled," he said. "They're trying to do the right thing. There's perfect, and that's sometimes the enemy of practical. And so we try to make sure that even on the 'big, beautiful bill,' it wasn't perfect. There were 435 versions of perfect in the House, but having principled people come to the table and say, 'Let's get a practical solution so we can get wins for this administration and for our country' – I think that's what we have to do in the Senate." "I don't think we have to look at the opposing side as the enemy always," he said. "And I think we have to keep in mind, too, that they represent areas, and they have a different experience in life." Still, despite his desire to create bipartisan inroads in the upper chamber, which is a must in most legislative fights, given the 60-vote filibuster threshold, Moore supports a change to Senate rules for confirmations to blast through Senate Democrats' blockade of Trump's nominees. He's in support of shortening the debate time on nominees, one of the options on the table for when lawmakers return from their August break, and argued that Democrats "are playing the obstructionist" despite Trump winning big in the 2024 election. "The American people are fed up with that, so I say we change the rules and allow these nominees to get the jobs and start doing the job so they can help the president achieve his agenda," he said.
