logo
Analysis: How not to end a war: 3 lessons from the last time Ukraine and Russia agreed a ceasefire deal

Analysis: How not to end a war: 3 lessons from the last time Ukraine and Russia agreed a ceasefire deal

CNN14-03-2025

The ceasefire proposal put forward by the United States on Tuesday and accepted by Ukraine is part of a plan, said US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, 'to end this conflict in a way that's enduring and sustainable.'
It's a promise fraught with risk for Ukraine. The last time it signed a peace accord with Russia, 10 years ago this February, it brought only sporadic violence, mounting distrust, and eventually full-scale war.
'I told President Trump about this,' Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky said in an interview last month with CNN affiliate CNN Turk. 'If you can get Putin to end the war, that's great. But know that he can cheat. He deceived me like that. After the Minsk ceasefire.'
The Minsk accords – the first signed in September 2014 and, when that broke down, a second known as Minsk II just five months later – were designed to end a bloody conflict between Kyiv's forces and Russian-backed separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk, in Ukraine's eastern Donbas region. Russia's Vladimir Putin and Ukraine's then-leader Petro Poroshenko were signatories, along with the OSCE.
The accords were never fully implemented and violence flared up periodically in the seven years that followed.
Now, as Ukraine and its allies attempt to forge another path to peace, experts warn the failures of Minsk serve as a cautionary tale for today's peacemakers, and that the risks of history repeating are clear. Here's what we've learned:
In 2015, Western military aid to Ukraine was minimal, and mostly limited to non-lethal supplies, though the Obama administration did supply defensive military equipment. 'The crisis cannot be resolved by military means,' said then-German Chancellor Angela Merkel, in a speech at the 2015 Munich Security Conference, which coincided with the talks on Minsk II. Her assessment of those diplomatic efforts was blunt: 'It's unclear whether they'll succeed.'
It didn't help that both Minsk accords were signed right after, or during, major military defeats for Ukraine.
The first agreement followed what's believed to be the deadliest episode of the conflict in the Donbas, at Ilovaisk. In late August 2014, hundreds of Ukrainian troops were killed as they tried to flee the town to avoid encirclement.
Six months later, Minsk II was signed while fierce fighting raged for another Donetsk town, Debaltseve. That battle continued for several days beyond the initial ceasefire deadline.
Marie Dumoulin, a diplomat at the French Embassy in Berlin at the time, says those defeats put both Ukraine and its allies firmly on the back foot in the talks.
'Basically the main goal, both for France and Germany, but also for the Ukrainians, was to end the fighting,' she told CNN. But, she added, 'Russia through its proxies, but also directly, was in a much stronger position on the battlefield, and so could increase the intensity of fighting to put additional pressure on the negotiations.'
From a military perspective, Ukraine's Western-backed, almost million-strong army of today is almost unrecognizable from the underfunded and under-equipped force that took on the Russian-backed separatists in 2014.
And yet, as Ukraine 'accepts' a temporary ceasefire proposal, it faces a double challenge.
Firstly, Russia, has been inching forward in recent months on the eastern front (albeit at a huge cost to personnel and equipment), and inflicting almost daily aerial attacks on Ukraine's cities. And secondly, the US, Ukraine's biggest backer, has now withheld crucial military aid, in response to a public falling-out between Zelensky and US President Donald Trump. The aid is now restored, but the episode has left Ukraine on shaky ground.
'That makes Ukraine's situation now very precarious,' said Sabine Fischer, senior fellow at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs. 'Ukraine from… the Trump administration's perspective has become an obstacle to this normalization that they want for their relationship with Russia.'
Experts agree the Minsk accords were put together hastily as violence escalated. Johannes Regenbrecht, a former German civil servant who was involved in the negotiations, pointed out in a recent paper that Ukraine's allies had reached the point in February 2015 where they worried that allowing Russia to continue unchecked 'would have resulted in the de facto secession of eastern Ukraine under Moscow's control.'
With hindsight, experts say, the resulting document left too much ambiguity when it came to implementing the deal. The thorniest issue was how to link the military provisions (a ceasefire and withdrawal of weapons), with the political ones (local elections, and a 'special regime' in the separatist-controlled areas).
'Ukraine was saying, we need security first and then we can implement the political provisions. Russia was saying, once political provisions are implemented, separatists will be satisfied and will stop fighting,' said Dumoulin, now director of the Wider Europe program at the European Council on Foreign Relations. That initial disagreement was an early sign of what Dumoulin and other experts see as Moscow's ultimate intention to use the political provisions of Minsk to gain greater control over Ukraine.
Fischer argues that Trump's desire to end the war quickly suggests the US may not only be at risk of reaching a flawed deal in haste, but may actually be willing to settle for something that doesn't offer long-term solutions. 'Comprehensive ceasefire agreements are not negotiated quickly… they're very complicated, many intricacies… And I don't think that this is what the Trump administration is aiming for,' she told CNN.
In the end, the biggest issue with the Minsk accords, especially Minsk II, wasn't what was in the text, but what wasn't. There's not one mention of 'Russia' in the entire text, despite clear evidence that Russia was both arming the separatists, and sending reinforcements from the Russian army.
'Everyone knew that Russia was involved, but for the sake of the negotiations, this was not recognized,' said Dumoulin. 'The agreements were based on the fiction that the war was between separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk and Kyiv, and that it was ultimately a domestic conflict.'
There is no direct parallel today but there is, experts say, a risk Moscow is now using the false narrative that Zelensky is illegitimate because he failed to hold elections – Ukrainian law clearly states elections cannot be held during martial law – to rebrand the war as something that should be solved internally in Ukraine, and ultimately bring about regime change.
And even more concerning for Ukraine is that the US has taken a similar line, with Trump last month labeling Zelensky 'a dictator without elections,' although he subsequently appeared to distance himself from that statement.
The failure of the Minsk accords leaves no doubt as to the risks of perpetuating such falsehoods.
Back then, the fiction that Russia wasn't an aggressor or party to the conflict, along with insufficient pressure on Moscow in the form of sanctions or the provision of lethal military supplies to Ukraine, ultimately meant Minsk never addressed the root cause of the conflict.
'The fundamental contradiction of Minsk,' wrote Regenbrecht, 'was that Putin sought to end Ukraine as an independent nation… Consequently, he had no interest in a constructive political process.'
There's no evidence that that position has changed. In his speech on February 21, 2022, three days before the full-scale invasion, Putin described Ukraine as 'an inalienable part of our own history, culture and spiritual space,' before claiming, 'Ukraine actually never had stable traditions of real statehood.'
In January this year, one of his closest aides, Nikolai Patrushev, said he couldn't rule out 'that Ukraine will cease to exist at all in the coming year.'
And so, even amid US promises of keeping Ukraine out of NATO, and forcing them to accept territorial losses, the negotiating teams in Saudi Arabia have so far, it seems – just like their predecessors in Minsk – come nowhere close to tackling that core issue.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Is Trump's troop deployment in LA a prelude to martial law?
Is Trump's troop deployment in LA a prelude to martial law?

Boston Globe

time17 minutes ago

  • Boston Globe

Is Trump's troop deployment in LA a prelude to martial law?

Neither did Hegseth announced that National Guard members and the Marines will stay in Los Angeles for Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up At a Advertisement This is a Trump made-for-TV spectacle of authoritarianism disguised as law and order. It's likely a prelude to martial law. Rob Bonta, California's attorney general, is Advertisement Protests were sparked last week after Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials conducted several workplace raids in Los Angeles, including a But what began as boisterous but peaceful protests against Trump's anti-immigrant scheme which now demands 'If I didn't ''SEND IN THE TROOPS,'" Trump said Tuesday on social media, Los Angeles 'would be burning to the ground right now,' before he disparaged Bass and Newsom. Yes, there has been looting, and some cars have been burned and vandalized. But Trump is lying about the extent of lawlessness. Trump is following his bad policies with even worse provocations that could portend a modern-day Kent State tragedy with soldiers firing live bullets at protesters. But for Trump, the more chaos, the better. As a White House official said, 'We're happy to have this fight.' To some extent this fight to suppress dissent has been boiling in Trump for five years. During nationwide demonstrations after the police murder of George Floyd in 2020, Trump, then in his first term, asked members of his Cabinet whether protesters could be shot. 'He thought that the protests made the country look weak, made us look weak, and 'us' meant him,' Mark Esper, Trump's former defense secretary, Advertisement Esper recalled Trump saying to now-retired General Mark Milley, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ''Can't you just shoot them, just shoot them in the legs or something?' … It was a suggestion and a formal question. And we were just all taken aback at that moment as this issue just hung very heavily in the air.' Ultimately, Trump was talked out of it. That won't happen this time, with an administration packed with people whose only loyalty is to him, not to the Constitution or rule of law. After Tom Homan, Trump's bloviating border czar, If not for the ICE arrest of But not now. Everything in Trump's second administration is designed to codify his authoritarianism. If Trump can convince enough people, especially among his white base, that he alone represents the thin orange line between civilization — as Advertisement Right now, the administration claims the military is in Los Angeles to protect federal buildings and assets — theoretically. Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act, but neither has he ruled out unleashing US troops on protesters. With his draconian policies, Trump has lit the fuse for what could be a long and difficult summer of protests. With an occupying military force in this nation's second largest city, he has declared war against America itself. Renée Graham is a Globe columnist. She can be reached at

Trump promised not to send in military to tamp down on NYC protests — if NYPD keeps demonstrators in line
Trump promised not to send in military to tamp down on NYC protests — if NYPD keeps demonstrators in line

New York Post

time17 minutes ago

  • New York Post

Trump promised not to send in military to tamp down on NYC protests — if NYPD keeps demonstrators in line

President Trump promised NYPD brass over the weekend that he will not send in the military or National Guard to tamp down on anti-ICE protests in New York City — as long as cops keep the demonstrators in line, The Post has learned. Trump's pledge was made to Deputy Mayor of Public Safety Kaz Daughtry and NYPD Chief of Department John Chell as the pair palled around with the president at his New Jersey golf club. Sources with knowledge of the meeting said Trump had voiced concerns over the destructive mass protests engulfing Los Angeles and them being replicated in the Big Apple. Advertisement But Chell reassured the president that any demonstrations in the city would not get out of hand, the sources said. Kaz Daughtry and John Chell though didn't tee it up with the commander in chief. Linkedin/john-chell The two Big Apple police officials met with Trump on Sunday. Linkedin/john-chell Advertisement Trump then told the two he didn't believe the National Guard would be necessary in New York City. It came after he ordered an initial 2,000 National Guard troops to LA Saturday amid the raging protests over federal immigration enforcement raids. Since then, the Trump administration has in total dispatched roughly 4,000 National Guard members and 700 Marines to the city– sparking an emergency request by California Gov. Gavin Newsom Tuesday for a federal court to block the deployment. On Monday, Mayor Eric Adams and his police commissioner, Jessica Tisch, decried the anti-ICE riots in Los Angeles and issued a stern warning to New Yorkers to not follow suit. 'The escalation of protests in Los Angeles over the last couple of days is unacceptable and would not be tolerated if attempted in our city,' Adams said. Advertisement Tisch added that 'any attacks against law enforcement will be met with a swift and decisive response from the NYPD.' Earlier Monday, dozens of protestors calling for an end to the ICE raids were arrested at Trump Tower after refusing to leave the Manhattan high-rise. The meeting between Trump and Adams' allies raised eyebrows in New York City political circles — after Daughtry and Chell posted photos on social media from the Bedminster club. 'Great day on the links today with POTUS, #45-#47 – Donald J. Trump. Good conversation with a few laughs and a great lunch. Deputy Mayor of Public Safety Kaz Daughtry and I were grateful for the invite,' Chell wrote. Advertisement Sources said the two Big Apple officials didn't actually tee it up with the prez, despite the photos showing them chatting with him on the links. Still, Adams defended the outing on Tuesday, telling reporters, 'A lot of great deals have been made on the golf course.' 'I thank the two of them for doing it,' he said. 'Many of you who play golf know that great decisions are made on the golf course.' Both Chell and Daughtry also joined the mayor at Trump's inauguration earlier this year.

Live Updates: California Asks Court to Block Use of Troops in ICE Raids
Live Updates: California Asks Court to Block Use of Troops in ICE Raids

New York Times

time26 minutes ago

  • New York Times

Live Updates: California Asks Court to Block Use of Troops in ICE Raids

In downtown Los Angeles on Sunday, protesters faced off with law enforcement officers. Disinformation about the events has circulated online. Misleading photographs, videos and text have spread widely on social media as protests against immigrant raids have unfolded in Los Angeles, rehashing old conspiracy theories and expressing support for President Trump's actions. The flood of falsehoods online appeared intended to stoke outrage toward immigrants and political leaders, principally Democrats. They also added to the confusion over what exactly was happening on the streets, which was portrayed in digital and social media through starkly divergent ideological lenses. Many posts created the false impression that the entire city was engulfed in violence, when the clashes were limited to only a small part. There were numerous scenes of protesters throwing rocks or other objects at law enforcement officers and setting cars ablaze, including a number of self-driving Waymo taxis. At the same time, false images spread to revive old conspiracies that the protests were a planned provocation, not a spontaneous response to the immigration raids. The confrontation escalated on Monday as new protests occurred and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced — on X — that he was mobilizing 700 Marines from a base near Los Angeles to guard federal buildings. They are expected to join 2,000 members of the California National Guard whom Mr. Trump ordered deployed without the authorization of the state's governor, Gavin Newsom, who normally has command of the troops. The latest deployments prompted a new wave of misleading images to spread — some purporting to show Marines and the military service's weapons in action. One was a still from 'Blue Thunder,' a 1983 action-thriller about a conspiracy to deprive residents of Los Angeles of their civil rights. It features a climactic dogfight over the city's downtown. Darren L. Linvill, a researcher at Clemson University's Media Forensics Hub, said conservatives online were 'building up the riots in a performative way' to help bolster Mr. Trump's claims that Los Angeles had been taken over by 'violent, insurrectionist mobs.' Dr. Linvill said the posts were also 'a bit self-fulfilling.' 'As they direct attention to it,' he said, 'more protesters will show up.' James Woods, the actor who has become known for spreading conspiracy theories, used his account on X to rail against the state's elected officials, especially Mr. Newsom, a Democrat. He also reposted a fabricated quote, attributed to former President Barack Obama, discussing a secret plot to impose socialism on the country, as well as a video of burning police cars that was from 2020. An innocuous photograph of a pallet of bricks, actually posted on the website of a building materials wholesaler in Malaysia, was cited as proof that the protests were organized by nonprofit organizations supported by George Soros, the financier who, to the feverishly conspiratorial right, has become a mastermind of global disorder. Image These bricks are actually from an image on the website of a building materials wholesaler in Malaysia. Credit... The New York Times 'It's Civil War!!' an account on X wrote on Saturday, claiming that the bricks had been placed near the offices of Immigration and Customs Enforcement for 'Democrat militants.' X posted a Community Note pointing out that the photograph had nothing to do with the protests, but it still was seen more than 800,000 times. It was also widely reposted, including by several seemingly inauthentic accounts in Chinese. The online trope dates at least to the Black Lives Matter protests in 2020. It reappeared in 2022 after a conspiratorial post by Representative Lauren Boebert, a Colorado Republican who suggested that bricks for a paving project near Capitol Hill were intended for violent protests after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. 'These days, it feels like every time there's a protest, the old clickbaity 'pallets of bricks' hoax shows up right on cue,' the Social Media Lab, a research center at the Toronto Metropolitan University, wrote on Bluesky. 'You know the one, photos or videos of bricks supposedly left out to encourage rioting. It's catnip for right-wing agitators and grifters.' It also fits into the narrative that protests against government policies are somehow inauthentic. On his own platform, Truth Social, Mr. Trump also suggested that the protesters were 'Paid Insurrectionists!' Numerous posts echoed unsubstantiated claims that the protests were the work of Mr. Soros as well as local nongovernment organizations or Democratic elected officials, including the mayor of Los Angeles, Karen Bass. Some posts disparaging the protests were shared by accounts with deceptive handles that closely resembled those of official government sources or news organizations. Mike Benz, a conspiracy-minded influencer on X who last year claimed that the Pentagon used the pop star Taylor Swift as part of a psychological operation to undercut Mr. Trump, advanced an outlandish theory that the mayor had links to the Central Intelligence Agency and had helped start riots in the city where she lives. He based that simply on Ms. Bass's role as a board member for the National Endowment for Democracy, the congressionally mandated organization formed during the Reagan administration to promote democratic governance around the world. Not surprisingly, perhaps, the theme was echoed by accounts across social media linked to Russia, which often amplifies content that discredits the United States. The Kremlin and its supporters have long accused Mr. Soros or the United States government of covertly sponsoring 'color revolutions' to overthrow governments — from the Arab Spring countries swept up by mass street protests in 2011 to Ukraine. 'It is nationwide conspiracy of liberals against not only Trump but against American people in general,' Aleksandr Dugin, a prominent nationalist in Russia, wrote on X on Sunday. Disinformation in situations like these spreads so quickly and widely that efforts to verify facts cannot keep up, said Nora Benavidez, senior counsel at Free Press, an advocacy organization that studies the intersection of media, technology and the law. She described it as part of 'a much longer effort to delegitimize peaceful resistance movements.' 'Information warfare is always a symptom of conflict, stoked often by those in power to fuel their own illiberal goals,' she said. 'It confuses audiences, scares people who might otherwise have empathy for the cause and divides us when we need solidarity most.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store