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

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Politico
20 minutes ago
- Politico
George Floyd unrest informs Trump's response to Los Angeles protests
President Donald Trump's response to the Los Angeles protests isn't just an opportunity to battle with a Democratic governor over his signature issue. The president sees it as a chance to redo his first-term response to a wave of civil unrest. As protests broke out after the killing of George Floyd in 2020, Trump's instincts were to deploy thousands of active-duty troops across U.S. cities. But some administration officials resisted the idea and reportedly urged the president against invoking the Insurrection Act to do so. Five years later, Trump sees something familiar as protests rage across Los Angeles in response to the administration's immigration raids. He moved quickly to deploy 4,000 National Guard members and 700 Marines to support law enforcement, a decision he credited on Tuesday with preventing a 'great City' from 'burning to the ground.' And he repeatedly signaled his willingness to invoke the Insurrection Act if protests continue to escalate. There's a chief motivating factor driving Trump's aggressive response: The president is eager to avoid a repeat of the summer of protest that followed a Minneapolis police officer's killing of Floyd. The civil unrest added another layer to the turmoil facing Trump, as the country reeled from the Covid pandemic and voters prepared to return to the ballot box. And this time, he has stacked his Cabinet with loyalists and is less restrained by officials such as those in his first administration who feared deploying active-duty military troops would further inflame tensions and be viewed as a step toward martial law. 'The president is trusting his gut here,' said a person close to the White House, granted anonymity to discuss the president's response, reflecting back to former Chair of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley and former Defense Secretary Mark Esper breaking with Trump's desire to send troops. 'He thinks the Milleys and the Espers of the world, five years ago, they gave him bad advice on that stuff.' Administration officials and allies say the president's hardline approach also sends a warning to other city and state leaders as anti-ICE protests spread beyond Los Angeles. 'In 2020, I was a governor of a neighboring state to Tim Walz and watched him let his city burn,' Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said in the Oval Office on Tuesday. 'The president and I have talked about this in the past: He was not going to let that happen to another city and to another community, where a bad governor made a bad decision.' It's yet another example of the president acting on his belief that he has a governing mandate from his 2024 comeback, which aides and allies attribute in large part to immigration and, specifically, the president's vow to deport undocumented immigrants. 'Is the left going to be able to take this over and turn rules-based immigration into yet another fight about how America is racist?' said Matt Schlapp, a Trump confidant and chair of the American Conservative Union. 'The No. 1 reason Donald Trump got reelected was the border. He's implementing exactly what he said he would do, and out of nowhere, there's violence in the streets, there's fire bombs, there's attacks on cops.' A White House official, granted anonymity to discuss the administration's thinking, said immigration enforcement has continued across the country despite the protests: 'Individuals in other cities should realize that rioting will not prevent immigration enforcement operations in their cities as well.' Trump has repeatedly referred to the protesters as 'insurrectionists' and 'violent insurrectionist mobs,' and his rhetoric intensified on Tuesday as he said the protests amount to an 'invasion' that threatens U.S. 'sovereignty' and that he will now allow 'an American city to be invaded and conquered by a foreign enemy.' He condemned what he called 'lawlessness' and the burning of the American flag, suggesting it should be punished with a year in prison — echoing his rhetoric from June 2020. But he also said the Los Angeles protests are not yet an insurrection — and that he will only invoke the Insurrection Act, which would allow troops to directly participate in civilian law enforcement, if it escalates to that point. The president on Sunday directed Noem, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Attorney General Pam Bondi to take 'all such action necessary to liberate Los Angeles' and 'put an end to these Migrant riots.' 'Mark Esper fought like the dickens to avoid the Insurrection Act. He wasn't the only one. So did Attorney General [Bill] Barr, and so forth,' said Ken Cuccinelli, who served as Trump's deputy of Homeland Security during the first term. 'Whereas, Pam Bondi and Pete Hegseth are more along the lines of just giving advice, and 'if it's the route you want to go, Mr. President, we'll salute and we'll move right down that path.' And that speaks to a unity in government that didn't exist in the first term.' The Trump administration's response has alarmed California Democrats, who warn that what's happening in their state paves the way for the president to deploy the military nationwide to enact his immigration agenda. The president has already militarized the border to an unprecedented degree, with military, immigration and legal experts questioning the legality of the approach and warning of potential violations to the Posse Comitatus Act, a federal law that generally prohibits active-duty troops from being used in domestic law enforcement. Trump's decision to deploy troops has also set off a legal firestorm: California sued the administration for deploying the National Guard without consultation, arguing that using the military to quell the immigration protests is illegal and unconstitutional. Gov. Gavin Newsom filed another suit on Tuesday, asking a federal judge for a restraining order to block Hegseth from ordering troops to support immigration raids in the city 'immediately.' 'There is no invasion or rebellion in Los Angeles; there is civil unrest that is no different from episodes that regularly occur in communities throughout the country, and that is capable of being contained by state and local authorities working together,' California Attorney General Rob Bonta and other lawyers wrote in the new motion. Rallies protesting the administration's ICE raids and immigration agenda spread across U.S. cities this week. And so-called 'No Kings' rallies, coinciding with the president's military parade in Washington on Saturday, are planned in more than 1,800 cities across the country, including the nation's capital. Trump warned on Tuesday that any protests during this weekend's parade will be met with 'very heavy force.' 'If there's any protester who wants to come out, they will be met with very big force,' the president said in the Oval Office. 'I haven't even heard about a protest, but [there are] people that hate our country.' Dasha Burns contributed to this report.


The Hill
24 minutes ago
- The Hill
ABC News cuts ties with Terry Moran after Trump ‘hater' post
ABC News says it will not renew the contract of veteran journalist Terry Moran after he authored a social media post sharply criticizing President Trump and top White House aide Stephen Miller. 'We are at the end of our agreement with Terry Moran and based on his recent post – which was a clear violation of ABC News policies – we have made the decision to not renew,' a spokesperson for the network told The Hill on Tuesday. 'At ABC News, we hold all of our reporters to the highest standards of objectivity, fairness and professionalism, and we remain committed to delivering straightforward, trusted journalism,' the spokesperson added. Moran was suspended by the network over the weekend for his post on the social platform X in which he called Miller a 'world-class hater' and said 'you can see this just by looking at him because you can see that his hatreds are his spiritual nourishment. He eats his hate.' In the since-deleted post, Moran also criticized the president, saying he too is 'a world-class hater' and adding that 'his hatred only a means to an end, and that end [is] his own glorification. That's his spiritual nourishment.' Moran's post enraged the West Wing, which called on the Disney-owned network to punish the journalist. Almost immediately once Moran's ouster was made public, White House director of communications Steven Cheung celebrated the news, writing in an X post: 'Talk s—. Get hit.' Moran's ouster comes as Trump and his allies in government are ratcheting up pressure on broadcast news networks over their coverage of him and threatening to use executive power to crack down on coverage they say is unfair to his administration. Trump has called out ABC News specifically several times in recent weeks, suggesting the Federal Communications Commission scrutinize its broadcast license. The network late last year agreed to pay Trump $15 million to settle a defamation lawsuit out of court stemming from an incorrect statement made by anchor George Stephanopoulos during a broadcast claiming Trump had been convicted of sexual assault. Moran has worked for ABC News for more than two decades and is based in Washington, D.C., having served in a variety of roles for the network.


Time Magazine
25 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
More Than 1,500 ‘No Kings' Protests Planned Amid Trump Crackdown on L.A. Demonstrations
More than 1,500 ' No Kings Day ' demonstrations are set to take place across the U.S. this weekend to protest the Trump Administration as President Donald Trump holds a military parade in Washington, D.C. The demonstrations will take place all over the country on Saturday, coinciding with the parade Trump has planned to mark the U.S. Army's 250th birthday. Ezra Levin, the co-founder and co-executive director of the progressive organization Indivisible that's behind 'No Kings Day,' told MSNBC on Monday that the protests—originally announced last month—have generated 'overwhelming interest' in the aftermath of the Administration's response to the immigration-related protests in Los Angeles. 'In America, we don't do kings,' reads a website for the events. 'They've defied our courts, deported Americans, disappeared people off the streets, attacked our civil rights, and slashed our services. The corruption has gone too. Far.' The protests will follow days of demonstrations in L.A. over Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids targeting undocumented immigrants. In a rare and controversial exercise of presidential power, Trump over the weekend mobilized the National Guard—against the wishes of California Gov. Gavin Newsom—to quell the protests in the L.A. area, which had been largely peaceful. The move sparked immediate outcry from Democratic politicians, advocacy organizations, and legal experts. Trump has since escalated federal involvement by deploying hundreds of Marines and thousands of additional National Guard troops to the city. 'No Kings is a nationwide day of defiance. From city blocks to small towns, from courthouse steps to community parks, we're taking action to reject authoritarianism—and show the world what democracy really looks like,' the 'No Kings Day' description said. 'On June 14th, we're showing up everywhere [Trump] isn't—to say no thrones, no crowns, no kings.' The event's organizers aren't holding a protest in D.C. itself, saying they want to make the demonstrations elsewhere the story of the day rather than allowing Saturday's military parade to be 'the center of gravity.' On Tuesday, Trump warned people planning to protest at the parade that they would face 'very big force.' 'For those people that want to protest, they're going to be met with very big force,' Trump said. 'And I haven't even heard about a protest, but you know, this is people that hate our country, but they will be met with very heavy force.'