FactCheck: have pro-Russian

separatists broken the ceasefire?

The actual ceasefire line is beyond Debaltseve, because that line is controlled by
the rebels.
Sergei Lavrov, 18 February 2015-February 19, 2015
The analysis
Is the latest ceasefire deal between pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine
and the Kiev government in tatters?
The guns were supposed to fall silent at 0000 hours on 15 February, but fighting
has continued, most obviously in and around the town of Debaltseve.
If reports of rebels attacking Ukrainian troops with heavy weapons as they tried to
withdraw from the town are correct, that looks like a breach of the ceasefire
agreement.
But echoing the words of some separatist commanders, the Russian foreign
minister, Sergei Lavrov, said fighting in Debaltseve did not technically break the
rules of the deal.
Others, including Ukraines president, Petro Poroshenko, and British and US
diplomats, take the opposite view. Whos right?

Grad rockets fired by pro-Russian separatists at Gorlivka, near

Debaltseve, on 18 February
The analysis
The Minsk II agreement was hammered out during marathon talks in the
Belarussian capital by the leaders of Ukraine, Russia, France, and Germany. The
full text can be read here.
At the time Debaltseve, an important transport hub that potentially connects large
rebel-held areas, was the scene of heavy fighting between Ukraines army and
rebel forces widely said to be supplied with men and weapons by Russia (though
Moscow denies this).

This map comes from an anti-Kiev website but it appears to be accurate, based on
cross-checking with what news organisations have said. The green line is the
Russian border and the pink bits are under separatist control.
It shows the basic shape of what was the front line late last month. The big white
bulge in the middle is the salient around Debaltseve controlled by the Ukrainians
until the last few days.

The shape of the line matters because the

Minsk deal states that Ukrainian forces had to withdraw all their heavy weapons
from the actual line of contact when the midnight deadline arrived, creating a
buffer zone around the de facto front line.

Unlike previous (failed) ceasefire protocols, which called for an immediate end to
hostilities, Minsk II built in a delay of couple of days after the agreement was
signed on 12 February.
There was therefore an incentive for both sides to carry on fighting to push the
actual line of contact back, to try to win as much ground as possible.
Of course we werent hiding under the table when the talks were taking place, so
theres a big element of conjecture as to what actually happened.
Mr Lavrov has said that Russia told the Ukrainians that the rebels had surrounded
a large number of government troops, and insisted his government had tried to
avoid a bloodbath by negotiating a Ukrainian withdrawal.
He claims that Mr Poroshenko insisted that there was no entrapment and our
further attempts to discuss this issue somehow and to reach an understanding
and a solution to this problem were not successful.
That could explain why Debaltseve is not explicitly named in the ceasfire deal. In
fact, the wording of the public document is exremely vague and it only refers to a
ceasefire in particular districts of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine.
Professor Gwendolyn Sasse from Oxford University told us: Poroshenko and Putin
didnt agree on Debaltseve and the vague reference disguises that somewhat.
One can read the first point in the agreement about postponing the start of the
immediate ceasefire by several days as space for the separatists to capture
Debaltseve.
Tarik Cyril Amar, a historian from Columbia University, has said the agreement
had a lot of in-built weaknesses, and agrees that the delay was deliberately
designed to let both sides grab more territory.
He thinks the negotiators were expecting Debaltseve to fall to the separatists
imminently, and it was inconvenient that the Ukrainians were still holding on to
parts of the town after the ceasefire came into force at midnight on Saturday.
So there are really two questions. The first is whether was the town under rebel
control when the clock struck midnight? That is still the subject of a war of words
between Russia and Ukraine.

Mr Lavrov (above) and President Vladimir Putin have repeatedly said Debaltseve
was encircled, the implication being that it was completely surrounded by rebels
and basically part of rebel-held territory.
Mr Poroshenko says: Debaltseve was under our control. It was never encircled.
Our troops and formations have left in an organised and planned manner.
The second question is whether the rebels had the right to carry on fighting if
Ukrainian troops in Debaltseve were indeed cut off and essentially trapped behind
enemy lines.
Prof Sasse told us the continued fighting in the area clearly goes against the
spirit of the agreement.
She added: Lavrov is trying to be legalistic a non-reference to Debaltseve in the
agreement means the agreement hasnt been violated. This has been the Russian
approach before.
Britains ambassador to the UN, Mark Lyall Grant, said it was totally
unacceptable that rebel leaders had said the ceasefire did not apply to
Debaltseve.
EU diplomat Federica Mogherini said fighting in the town was a clear violation of
the ceasefire.
The verdict

Mr Lavrovs view contradicts the spirit of the ceasefire, which obviously calls for
an end to the fighting.
On the other hand, the agreement was worded in such a vague way with no
mention of the fate of Debaltseve that it is open to a number of interpretations.
It seems clear that for whatever reason, Moscow and Kiev could not reach a
diplomatic agreement over the town, with fatal consequences for some of the
men left to fight over it.
Russia and its opponents are probably never going to agree over whether
continued fighting in Debaltseve was a breach of the agreement, but it may not
matter very much.
There are many other points agreed in the deal that have not happened either.
The OSCE says it has not observed the withdrawal of heavy weaponry from the
front line yet, which was probably the most important item.
But all sides say the fragile truce is still alive, and there are reports that the
ceasefire still holds along much of the front.
Prof Sasse sees some room for optimism in the fact that Russia at least appears to
be taking Minsk II seriously as the starting point for dialogue.
There was more evidence of that today when Moscow complained that Mr
Poroshenkos calls for UN peacekeepers to be deployed in eastern Ukraine fell
outside the specific terms agreed at Minsk.
She said: The fact that Lavrov (and others) emphasise that the agreement has
not been violated suggests they see value in it, have an interest in continuing
negotiations on that basis.
It may also suggest that Moscow has less influence over local developments than
we think.
Posted by Thavam