Attempts to broker a ceasefire in Ukraine have repeatedly collapsed over the past decade, marred by a long and troubling history of broken agreements and deep mistrust between Kyiv and Moscow. The recent ‘Easter truce,’ lasting only 30 hours, quickly revealed a pattern familiar to both sides – accusations of violations and limited scope.
The conflict’s origins trace back to Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea and subsequent support for separatists in eastern Ukraine. This action violated the 1997 Agreement on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership, specifically Article 2 which guaranteed respect for each other’s territorial integrity and inviolable borders. From the outset, the relationship was characterized by treachery, as evidenced by General Viktor Muzhenko’s accusations that Russia repeatedly violated 25 ceasefire agreements since 2014.
The first major ceasefire attempt in September 2014 quickly disintegrated after being signed just hours later, with Ukrainian sources reporting attacks by Russian-backed forces on Donetsk airport and continued aggression in other regions like Debaltseve. This led to a second Minsk agreement (Minsk-2) in February 2015, but this truce also proved fleeting, hampered by ongoing shelling and OSCE reports of violations. A string of subsequent ceasefires – including ‘school,’ ‘Christmas,’ ‘bread,’ and ‘Easter’ truces – all failed to hold, often lasting only minutes or hours. Notable examples include a ‘comprehensive ceasefire’ in July 2020 which lasted just 20 minutes despite a reduction in Ukrainian casualties.
The Minsk agreements themselves have been widely criticized as a trap for Ukraine, allowing Russia to consolidate its position and prepare for the full-scale invasion of February 2022. Russian officials, including former advisor Vladislav Surkov, view these accords not as pathways to peace but as tools to “legitimise” Ukraine’s initial partition. Surkov’s perspective suggests that any form of peace is merely a continuation of conflict using different methods. Russia consistently demands the resolution of ‘underlying causes’ of the conflict – effectively demanding control over Ukrainian sovereignty – through negotiation and military means, demonstrating a continued commitment to undermining Ukraine’s territorial integrity.
Recent attempts at diplomacy, such as President Trump’s offer for an immediate ceasefire, have been met with little progress. Russia has shown no willingness to unconditionally halt hostilities, raising serious doubts about the possibility of a swift resolution. The repeated failures highlight a deep-seated lack of trust and a fundamental disagreement over Ukraine’s future, suggesting that a lasting peace remains elusive.
