As the United States pushes for a ceasefire in the ongoing Ukraine-Russia conflict, questions arise about the effectiveness of such efforts. On Tuesday, the United States put forward a ceasefire proposal, which was accepted by Ukraine, with the aim to bring an end to the war in a sustainable and enduring manner. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio emphasized that this effort was part of a broader plan to ensure long-term peace. However, there are considerable risks involved for Ukraine, as the last peace deal signed with Russia in 2014 led to only sporadic violence, growing distrust, and, ultimately, full-scale war.
In a recent interview, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky warned about the potential dangers of such agreements, drawing parallels to the Minsk accords. “If you can get Putin to end the war, that’s great. But know that he can cheat. He deceived me after the Minsk ceasefire,” he stated. The Minsk accords, signed in 2014 and 2015, were meant to end the bloody conflict between Ukraine’s forces and Russian-backed separatists in the Donbas region. However, these accords were never fully implemented, and violence continued intermittently for several years.
As Ukraine and its allies seek a new path to peace, experts warn that the failures of the Minsk agreements serve as an important cautionary tale. The risks of repeating the same mistakes are clear, and here are three critical lessons we can learn from the past:
1. The Importance of Strengthening Ukraine Militarily
In 2015, Western military aid to Ukraine was minimal, consisting mainly of non-lethal supplies. Although defensive military equipment was provided, the overall support was insufficient. At the same time, international leaders like German Chancellor Angela Merkel questioned the effectiveness of diplomacy in ending the conflict. The failure to provide strong military backing left Ukraine vulnerable, and the Minsk agreements were signed after major military defeats for Ukrainian forces.
The first agreement came shortly after the devastating Ilovaisk battle, where hundreds of Ukrainian soldiers were killed. The second Minsk deal followed a fierce battle in Debaltseve, which continued even after the ceasefire was supposed to be in place. In both cases, Ukraine’s weakened military position significantly impacted the negotiations.
Today, Ukraine’s military is much stronger, bolstered by Western support, with a force nearing a million troops. However, Ukraine faces new challenges. Russia has made recent advances on the eastern front, and the ongoing aerial bombardments put additional pressure on the negotiations. Moreover, the withdrawal of crucial US military aid, which was restored after tensions between Zelensky and President Trump, has left Ukraine’s situation more precarious than ever.
2. No Quick Deals
The Minsk accords were hastily arranged in response to escalating violence. In 2015, there was a growing concern among Ukraine’s allies that if Russia was not checked, it would de facto control eastern Ukraine. The resulting agreements left many details vague, particularly around the military and political provisions, and lacked clear guidelines for implementation.
Ukraine insisted on security measures first, while Russia argued that political provisions must come first. This disagreement revealed Moscow’s ultimate intention: to use the political provisions to increase its control over Ukraine. According to experts, the Trump administration’s desire for a swift resolution could lead to a rushed deal with similar flaws. Comprehensive peace agreements require time, careful negotiation, and attention to the intricacies of both military and political issues.
3. Beware of False Narratives
The Minsk agreements, especially Minsk II, failed to recognize Russia as an aggressor in the conflict. Despite overwhelming evidence that Russia was arming separatists and sending military reinforcements, the accords portrayed the war as a domestic conflict between Ukraine and the separatists. This false narrative helped avoid directly addressing Russia’s role in the war and, ultimately, did not resolve the underlying cause of the conflict.
Similarly, today there is a growing risk that Russia may reframe the war in terms of Ukraine’s internal issues. Moscow has recently questioned the legitimacy of Zelensky’s government, accusing him of failing to hold elections during martial law, which could be used to justify further interference in Ukraine’s sovereignty.
Furthermore, the United States has begun echoing similar narratives, with Trump recently labeling Zelensky as “a dictator without elections.” This rhetoric mirrors the false narratives of the Minsk era, which ultimately failed to address Russia’s ultimate goal—ending Ukraine as an independent nation.
In conclusion, as Ukraine faces another ceasefire proposal, the lessons from the past are clear. A military buildup, careful and deliberate negotiations, and a commitment to truth are essential to avoid repeating the mistakes of previous peace attempts. Ukraine’s sovereignty and security cannot be compromised, and any peace deal must address the root causes of the conflict—Russia’s aggression and its desire to undermine Ukraine’s independence.
- Source: CNN
