How many times has Vladimir Putin broken ceasefire agreements with Ukraine?
Donald Trump 's administration has taken a Ukrainian proposal for a 30-day truce with Russia to Vladimir Putin for consideration.
After months of Mr Trump blaming Ukraine for being the obstacle to peace despite Russia's sole role as the aggressor, Washington says the ball is now in Moscow's court.
Ukraine hopes this will show that it has always been Russia that is the one in the way of peace.
But even if Mr Putin agrees to a temporary truce, which is a big if, Ukraine and Europe are clear that Russia has a long history of breaking ceasefire agreements.
Mr Putin, they say, cannot be trusted, even if Mr Trump believes the Russian leader will respect his requests.
Last month, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky handed a document to Mr Trump's Ukraine envoy detailing what he said were the 25 ceasefires Russia has violated since the start of its aggression in 2014. That document was intended to be delivered to Mr Trump.
Below, we look at some of those agreements and how exactly these previous ceasefires broke down.
The Minsk Agreements
After pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych was ousted in 2014 following the Euromaidan revolution, Mr Putin sent plainclothes Russian soldiers into the southern Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea, and then into the eastern Ukrainian regions of Luhansk and Donetsk.
Fighting quickly broke out as Russia denied involvement. Moscow claimed it was Ukrainian separatist forces.
Nonetheless, by September of that year, Ukraine, Russia and the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics (DPR and LPR) convened for the first of what would be many peace talks. They were brokered by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE).
On 5 September, the first of two agreements was signed in the Belarusian capital of Minsk.
Its provisions included prisoner exchanges, the delivery of humanitarian aid and the withdrawal of heavy weapons.
But a day later, Ukraine's National Security and Defense Council announced that Russian troops had fired at Ukrainian positions at least 10 times. The ceasefire failed to materialise into anything substantive.
By the turn of the year, fighting had intensified. Pro-Russian insurgents attacked Ukrainian positions at Debaltseve, a transport hub near the administrative line between Donetsk and Luhansk, eventually forcing a Ukrainian withdrawal by mid-February.
At that point, a second agreement was underway in Minsk, this time overseen by German chancellor Angela Merkel and French president Francois Hollande.
The agreement came into effect on 15 February but lasted only a few minutes, as Russian units fired on a Ukrainian checkpoint near Zolote in Luhansk Oblast, according to Ukraine's military.
For the next four years, Russia and Ukraine agreed to several ceasefires a year, often timed with Christmas, Easter or the harvest, around June/July.
Not a single one held for very long.
Zelensky's 2019 and 2020 attempts
It was just two months after the comedian-turned-politician Mr Zelensky assumed his role as the president of Ukraine that he found himself opposite Mr Putin for the latest round of peace talks.
Ms Merkel and the new French president Emmanuel Macron oversaw the talks.
In a written statement, the countries agreed to the release and exchange of all 'conflict-related detainees' by the end of 2019.
They also pledged to disengage military forces in three additional regions of Ukraine by the end of March 2020, without specifying which regions would be affected.
But it was a deal that was doomed to fail.
'We saw differences today,' Mr Macron admitted at the time. 'We didn't find the miracle solution, but we have advanced on it.'
The following July, another agreement was struck, one that did reduce the level of fighting but never quite stopped it completely.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
41 minutes ago
- NBC News
Trump speech at Fort Bragg prompts new questions, concerns about politicization of military
WASHINGTON — Defense Department officials say troops who cheered and jeered Tuesday at President Donald Trump's political statements at a rally at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, did not violate military regulations, but a former military legal officer said they did just that. During the speech, uniformed soldiers yelled in support of Trump's political statements and booed former President Joe Biden and California Gov. Gavin Newsom. 'Do you think this crowd would have showed up for Biden? I don't think so,' Trump said to boos about Biden. Trump made other comments about Newsom and about Karen Bass, the mayor of Los Angeles, where protests against the administration's crackdown on immigrants have been taking place and where Trump has ordered thousands of National Guard members and active-duty Marines deployed in response. Other Trump comments about the 'fake news media,' transgender people, protesters in California and flag-burning also drew boos from the uniformed military members in attendance. Trump is known for his rallies at which he goes after and pokes fun at political enemies and other issues, but typically he makes those remarks at political events, not on U.S. military bases. Such overt political activity on a base is the prerogative of the commander in chief. But military leaders would typically frown upon troops' reacting the way they did as inconsistent with military good order and discipline, and, according to one expert, it is a violation of military regulations found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or UCMJ. Presidents of both parties often use troops as political props and put them and their commanders in difficult positions by doing so, but Trump's speech took that to a new level, said Geoffrey DeWeese, a retired judge advocate general who is now an attorney with Mark S. Zaid PC. (Zaid has represented whistleblowers on both sides of the aisle, including one who filed a complaint about Trump's call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in 2019 that led to Trump's impeachment, and he was one of the people whose security clearances Trump revoked this year.) 'It's a sad tradition to use the military as a backdrop for political purposes,' DeWeese said. 'To actively attack another president or a sitting governor and incite the crowd to boo, that's a step in a dangerous direction, that really says we want to politicize the military, that sends a bad message.' DeWeese said there were likely to have been violations of the UCMJ. 'I would be cringing if I was a senior officer and it happened under my watch,' he said. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has said repeatedly that he wants to take politics out of the military by removing diversity, equity and inclusion programs and banning service by transgender service members. Kori Schake, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who worked at the State Department and the National Security Council under former President George W. Bush and at the Pentagon under former President George H.W. Bush, said in an email that commanders at Fort Bragg should have done a better job preparing troops there. 'It's terrible,' she wrote. 'It's predictably bad behavior by the President to try and score political points in a military setting, and it's a command failure by leaders at Ft Bragg not to prepare soldiers for that bad behavior and counsel them not to participate.' The Pentagon said in a statement that there had been no violation of the UCMJ and suggested the media was against policies that Trump has championed. Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell also alleged in a statement that the media 'cheered on the Biden administration' and its policies regarding the Defense Department 'when they forced drag queen performances on military bases, promoted service members on the basis of race and sex in violation of federal law, and fired troops who refused an experimental vaccine.' 'Believe me, no one needs to be encouraged to boo the media,' Parnell said. 'Look no further than this query, which is nothing more than a disgraceful attempt to ruin the lives of young soldiers.' On Wednesday, Army officials at Fort Bragg addressed the sale of some MAGA merchandise at the event, which was planned in cooperation with a nonpartisan organization, American 250. 'The Army remains committed to its core values and apolitical service to the nation,' Col. Mary Ricks, a spokeswoman for the Army's 18th Airborne Corps at Bragg, said in a statement. 'The Army does not endorse political merchandise or the views it represents. The vendor's presence is under review to determine how it was permitted and to prevent similar circumstances in the future.' The Army's own new field manual, published recently, says the apolitical nature of being a U.S. soldier is what contributes to the public trust. The Army 'as an institution must be nonpartisan and appear so, too,' says the new field manual, 'The Army: A Primer to Our Profession of Arms.' 'Being nonpartisan means not favoring any specific political party or group. Nonpartisanship assures the public that our Army will always serve the Constitution and our people loyally and responsively.' U.S. troops can participate in political functions, just not while on duty or in uniform, the book says. 'As a private citizen you are encouraged to participate in our democratic process, but as a soldier you must be mindful of how your actions may affect the reputation and perceived trustworthiness of our Army as an institution,' it says.
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Trump claims rare earths deal 'done' with China
When Trump announced sweeping tariffs on imports from a number of countries earlier this year, China was the hardest hit. China responded with its own higher rates on US imports, triggering further tit-for-tat increases. In May, talks held in Switzerland led to a temporary truce that Trump called a "total reset". It brought Trump's new US tariffs on Chinese products down from 145% to 30%, while Beijing slashed levies on US imports to 10% and promised to lift barriers on critical mineral exports. It gave both sides a 90-day deadline to try to reach a trade deal. But the US and China subsequently claimed breaches on non-tariff pledges. In his social media post, Trump said the US would have tariffs on Chinese goods of 55%, but officials said the figure included tariffs put in place during his first term. Markets showed little response to the deal, which Terry Haines, founder of the Washington-based consultancy Pangaea Policy, described as having both "very limited scope and unfinished status". "Setting the Geneva 'pause' back on track is the smallest of accomplishments, and doesn't suggest that a broad US-China trade deal or geopolitical rapprochement is any closer in the foreseeable future," he wrote.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Terry Moran's reveals new career move after being axed from ABC over criticism of Trump
Terry Moran has revealed he is launching a Substack channel just days after he was axed from his anchor job at ABC over anti-Trump social media comments. The 28-year ABC veteran, who was pictured barefoot, pacing and biting his nails outside his home earlier today, took to X - the same platform which ultimately became his downfall - to unveil the new career move. 'For almost 28 years I was a reporter and anchor for ABC News. As you may have heard, I'm not there anymore,' he said, referencing the high-profile axing. Moran was let go following a 'clear violation' of the network's social media and impartiality policy. Days prior, he shared a controversial post on X describing Trump as a 'world class hater' and top White House staffer Stephen Miller as the 'bile' behind the Trumpist movement. 'Miller is a man who is richly endowed with the capacity for hatred. He's a world class hater,' Moran wrote just after midnight on Sunday. 'You can see this just by looking at him because you can see that his hatreds are his spiritual nourishment. He eats his hate. Trump is a world-class hater. But his hatred only a means to an end, and that end his own glorification.' Those comments, though swiftly deleted, ultimately went viral and ABC executives felt they had no choice but to act quickly and respond harshly. If they didn't, the network's impartiality would have come into question, particularly given Trump's outspoken criticism of media bias. Now, Moran is forging a new path away from traditional media. 'I'm here, with you, on Substack, this amazing space and I can't wait to get at it,' he said. 'To get at the important work we all have to do in this time of such trouble for our country. 'I'm going to be reporting and interviewing and just sharing with you and hoping to hear from you as well.' Moran said it will take 'a few days, maybe longer' to get his profile up and running. 'I've got to get some stuff sorted out, but I can't wait to see you,' he said. Moran's decision to join Substack comes months after former CNN anchor Jim Acosta forged the same path after leaving his position. Acosta, who had long been an adversary of Trump, is reportedly on track to earn even more money than he was at CNN through Substack subscriptions - and is now free to share his true thoughts on the administration without fear of reprisal from his bosses. Just two days ago, he published an article weighing in on Trump's decision to deploy the National Guard to the Los Angeles pro-immigration riots. He wrote 'Trump has a long and disgraceful history of exacerbating and even fomenting political unrest in America. Moran was barefoot as he stepped out of his home on Wednesday. Hours later, he revealed he is forging a new path away from traditional media. 'I'm here, with you, on Substack, this amazing space and I can't wait to get at it' 'In California, Trump appears to be chomping at the bit for yet another violent clash with protesters. 'Whether his aim is to clear the way for a stronger authoritarian grip on America or to simply distract the public from his recent catfight with Elon Musk, Trump seems ready to rumble.' Among the top comments were praise that he was now able to speak his mind. 'Aren't you glad you are now on independent media so you can speak freely? Maybe Terry Moran will be joining you,' one person wrote. More than 200 others 'liked' the comment, while several agreed that they'd had a similar thought. Moran's fall from ABC's good graces came just months after he landed a coveted interview with the president. Trump said he had handpicked Moran for his interview because he had 'never heard of' him, despite his years of experience. In the interview, the duo clashed over Trump's immigration policies. Trump said: 'They're giving you the big break of a lifetime. I picked you because, frankly, I never heard of you. I picked you, Terry. But you're not being very nice.' One ABC insider said Moran's ousting had impacted his colleagues, but executives had no choice once his deleted post (pictured) gained momentum on MAGA social media channels One ABC insider said Moran's ousting had impacted his colleagues, but executives had no choice once his deleted video gained momentum on MAGA social media channels. 'It's just sad honestly. It's sad for him, a long-time colleague, friend, a good person, family man. It's just unfortunate, but there was no alternative, especially in these times,' the insider said. 'I can get maybe what he was trying to say, but like, dude, put the phone down and go to bed.' Before becoming a senior national correspondent in 2018, he served as ABC's Chief Foreign Correspondent. He also co-anchored the network's news show Nightline for eight years and was ABC News' Chief White Correspondent from 1999 to 2005, having originally joined the network in 1997.
