Ukraine agrees to accept immediate, 30-day ceasefire -US-Ukraine statement(reuters.com)
reuters.com
Ukraine agrees to accept immediate, 30-day ceasefire -US-Ukraine statement
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-agrees-accept-immediate-30-day-ceasefire-us-ukraine-statement-2025-03-11/
9 comments
> If they agree, then hopefully this gives Ukraine just a bit of respite and starts a change of trajectory of this war.
Looks like Russia is at an advantage in the war right now, so why would it be reasonable for Russia to agree to the ceasefire if this is the case.
Looks like Russia is at an advantage in the war right now, so why would it be reasonable for Russia to agree to the ceasefire if this is the case.
You are implying Russia will only end the war if it has a disadvantage. That means the strategy of the US by putting pressure on Ukraine is completely wrong. It will make things worse. But everybody knew that already except the American president.
I think at this stage Russia will keep going until it achieves its objectives, main ones being replace Ukrainian govt with a Russian friendly government, annex the Russia speaking regions, demilitarize Ukraine.
Whether the current US strategy makes things worse or not is an entirely different question, because you have to take into consideration things like the ability of the US to support Ukraine, the likelihood of Ukraine winning with the support, how much the support can hurt Russia in the long term, the number of people dying from this, the risk of nuclear war, etc.
Whether the current US strategy makes things worse or not is an entirely different question, because you have to take into consideration things like the ability of the US to support Ukraine, the likelihood of Ukraine winning with the support, how much the support can hurt Russia in the long term, the number of people dying from this, the risk of nuclear war, etc.
> I think at this stage Russia will keep going until it achieves its objectives, main ones being replace Ukrainian govt with a Russian friendly government,
They made this goal impossible when they attacked Ukraine in 2014. A government that's pro Russia is no longer electable. Zelenskyy could resign and however would replace him would be more anti Russia as well as whoever gets elected next time.
Anyone sucking up to Russia would get impeached and could not win re-election in any case. If Russia succeed in making Ukraine a dictatorship with a pet dictator its likely he would be overthrown very quickly. Even if they were able to conquer Ukraine they'd have to occupy it militarily indefinitely at great cost
> annex the Russia speaking regions,
This seems to pretend that those regions are any more happy to be joining Russia then the rest of Ukraine. Also it ignores that many people are changing to speaking Ukrainian even among people who immigrated from russia and people whose Ukrainian was not great until recently.
> demilitarize Ukraine.
Ukraine would never agree to this after what Russia has pulled.
> Whether the current US strategy makes things worse or not is an entirely different question, because you have to take into consideration things like the ability of the US to support Ukraine,
The US can keep supporting Ukraine as long as it wants to. The only reason it wouldn't is if a crazy guy was in charge and he decides to backstab our allies and undermine/destroy our government and national interests.
> the likelihood of Ukraine winning with the support,
Winning is hard but at least with US support Russian victory is practically impossible
> how much the support can hurt Russia in the long term
The main reason US wants to damage Russia is to prevent it from conquering Ukraine or from attacking other countries after that.
>the number of people dying from this, the risk of nuclear war, etc
Compare with risk of giving into nuclear bullying which encourages more bullying and makes nuclear weapon use much more likely in the medium term. The safer move is to call their bluff
They made this goal impossible when they attacked Ukraine in 2014. A government that's pro Russia is no longer electable. Zelenskyy could resign and however would replace him would be more anti Russia as well as whoever gets elected next time.
Anyone sucking up to Russia would get impeached and could not win re-election in any case. If Russia succeed in making Ukraine a dictatorship with a pet dictator its likely he would be overthrown very quickly. Even if they were able to conquer Ukraine they'd have to occupy it militarily indefinitely at great cost
> annex the Russia speaking regions,
This seems to pretend that those regions are any more happy to be joining Russia then the rest of Ukraine. Also it ignores that many people are changing to speaking Ukrainian even among people who immigrated from russia and people whose Ukrainian was not great until recently.
> demilitarize Ukraine.
Ukraine would never agree to this after what Russia has pulled.
> Whether the current US strategy makes things worse or not is an entirely different question, because you have to take into consideration things like the ability of the US to support Ukraine,
The US can keep supporting Ukraine as long as it wants to. The only reason it wouldn't is if a crazy guy was in charge and he decides to backstab our allies and undermine/destroy our government and national interests.
> the likelihood of Ukraine winning with the support,
Winning is hard but at least with US support Russian victory is practically impossible
> how much the support can hurt Russia in the long term
The main reason US wants to damage Russia is to prevent it from conquering Ukraine or from attacking other countries after that.
>the number of people dying from this, the risk of nuclear war, etc
Compare with risk of giving into nuclear bullying which encourages more bullying and makes nuclear weapon use much more likely in the medium term. The safer move is to call their bluff
Hooray, every ten years, the charcuterie board of lands that Russia is dining from, has is still restocked- and they even have those little paper-towels, contracts and agreements and memorandums, they are so important to get the sweet-meat juices from the fingertips during the dining experience.
Now if the frack-addicts, could refill the whine about how their addiction sufferings are worse then those of the conquered, we have the full experience. Five out of five stars, would war there again.
Now if the frack-addicts, could refill the whine about how their addiction sufferings are worse then those of the conquered, we have the full experience. Five out of five stars, would war there again.
Did Russia previously agree to this 30-day ceasefire? It’s a little annoying that the story doesn’t include that bit, as it’s essential to understand the implications of this news.
No; this is the US and Ukraine proposing one.
Russia seems likely to decline, but it apparently is enough to establish enough cover for Rubio to say we'll restart aid. We'll see if Trump torpedoes that in the next 24h or so.
Russia seems likely to decline, but it apparently is enough to establish enough cover for Rubio to say we'll restart aid. We'll see if Trump torpedoes that in the next 24h or so.
> We'll see if Trump torpedoes that in the next 24h or so.
which he almost certainly will.
really, the Russians just needed enough intelligence and asset coverage to launch a massive final blow against that Kursk salient that was almost surrounded.
there are a lot of good Ukrainian troops there, and a ceasefire gives UKR the ability to pullout without losses.
it's mostly grandstanding. and mostly matters not since Trump is doing everything he can to tank the US (and allied) economies.
which he almost certainly will.
really, the Russians just needed enough intelligence and asset coverage to launch a massive final blow against that Kursk salient that was almost surrounded.
there are a lot of good Ukrainian troops there, and a ceasefire gives UKR the ability to pullout without losses.
it's mostly grandstanding. and mostly matters not since Trump is doing everything he can to tank the US (and allied) economies.
Also breaking news: Trump administration to resume military aid to Ukraine and intelligence sharing
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43335482
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43335482
Excellent news for Ukraine -- well-played on their end.
They got the US to resume military aid, they're demonstrating to Trump they're "ready for peace" which is what he wants -- and now Russia will almost certainly reject the unconditional ceasefire.
And it'll be much harder for Trump to continue claiming that Ukraine is the obstacle to peace here.
They got the US to resume military aid, they're demonstrating to Trump they're "ready for peace" which is what he wants -- and now Russia will almost certainly reject the unconditional ceasefire.
And it'll be much harder for Trump to continue claiming that Ukraine is the obstacle to peace here.
Russia will not reject this ceasefire. It concedes absolutely nothing which basically forces Russia to say yes to it. Because if they don't, they looks so unreasonable that actual negotiations will fail.
My guestimate of the Russian position:
- Ukraine cannot ever be part of NATO.
- Seized territory remains Russian
- Sanctions should be lifted.
Next, it will not allow a "peace force" at the buffer zone. Because Russia will be back after it repairs its economy.
My guestimate of the Russian position:
- Ukraine cannot ever be part of NATO.
- Seized territory remains Russian
- Sanctions should be lifted.
Next, it will not allow a "peace force" at the buffer zone. Because Russia will be back after it repairs its economy.
They will... Russia is at an advantage right now in the war. Ceasefire would allow Ukraine to regroup and will give Ukraine a better position in the peace negotiations. Unless there are other considerations, I don't see why Russia would agree to this.
Exactly. 30 days gives Ukraine an opportunity to build far more extensive defensive fortifications without artillery raining down. Stock up on more drones and missiles. Arrange for more military assistance from Europe. It would be a dream.
What does it give Russia? Not much except for a chance to let Ukraine strengthen its position.
Putin doesn't care an iota whether he looks "reasonable" or not.
What does it give Russia? Not much except for a chance to let Ukraine strengthen its position.
Putin doesn't care an iota whether he looks "reasonable" or not.
The ceasefire is basically the world asking Russia: do you have any interest in any long term peace at all?
The answer is probably "not really" but Russia cannot signal that this early on. It's more beneficial to say "yes" to something with zero consequences and then dodge peace during actual negotiations.
The answer is probably "not really" but Russia cannot signal that this early on. It's more beneficial to say "yes" to something with zero consequences and then dodge peace during actual negotiations.
> do you have any interest in any long term peace at all?
Why can't Russia signal it's not interested in long-term peace? It's been signaling it's not interested for the entire war. And nothing has changed.
> It's more beneficial to say "yes" to something with zero consequences
Why? There's zero benefit to Russia. And major consequences to agreeing, because the pause will give Ukraine a significant military advantage in regrouping, that won't benefit Russia nearly as much. It's not zero consequences -- a temporary cease-fire would be a significant military setback for Russia.
Why can't Russia signal it's not interested in long-term peace? It's been signaling it's not interested for the entire war. And nothing has changed.
> It's more beneficial to say "yes" to something with zero consequences
Why? There's zero benefit to Russia. And major consequences to agreeing, because the pause will give Ukraine a significant military advantage in regrouping, that won't benefit Russia nearly as much. It's not zero consequences -- a temporary cease-fire would be a significant military setback for Russia.
You need to separate intent from messaging, it's how the game is played.
The US is taking a strong lead in brokering a deal. It got Ukraine and the EU to make large concessions (mineral deal, extra EU defense spending) to signal to the US that they are serious about peace and serious about heavily contributing to it to make it possible.
If Russia's public answer to this is: NO, I will not even lift a finger, then they open themselves up to US scrutiny because they admitted they are 100% unwilling.
As you rightfully put, they are already unwilling, but saying it is another thing. It's much better to go into a peace negotiation suggesting you're willing, than to block any talks at all.
What does US scrutiny look like? I have no idea. It could mean more sanctions, more weapon deliveries. Or it could mean nothing at all. I can't read this administration, it's so random.
The US is taking a strong lead in brokering a deal. It got Ukraine and the EU to make large concessions (mineral deal, extra EU defense spending) to signal to the US that they are serious about peace and serious about heavily contributing to it to make it possible.
If Russia's public answer to this is: NO, I will not even lift a finger, then they open themselves up to US scrutiny because they admitted they are 100% unwilling.
As you rightfully put, they are already unwilling, but saying it is another thing. It's much better to go into a peace negotiation suggesting you're willing, than to block any talks at all.
What does US scrutiny look like? I have no idea. It could mean more sanctions, more weapon deliveries. Or it could mean nothing at all. I can't read this administration, it's so random.
We'll see.
But Ukraine and the EU haven't actually made any concessions at all. There is no mineral deal -- yesterday they merely agreed that they will try to negotiate a mineral deal. And the EU hasn't raised defense spending out of any agreement or concession with or to the US -- they're talking about raising spending because the US seems to be pulling out, because of the absence of a deal.
> It's much better to go into a peace negotiation suggesting you're willing, than to block any talks at all.
Why? They've made it clear that they're willing provided Ukraine makes a bunch of concessions that Ukraine won't make. This is asking for an unconditional ceasefire, which Russia has been clear for years is off the table. And it would disadvantage them militarily. They have no reason to change their position -- for them, peace talks require preconditions, and Ukraine (rightly) rejects all of them.
But Ukraine and the EU haven't actually made any concessions at all. There is no mineral deal -- yesterday they merely agreed that they will try to negotiate a mineral deal. And the EU hasn't raised defense spending out of any agreement or concession with or to the US -- they're talking about raising spending because the US seems to be pulling out, because of the absence of a deal.
> It's much better to go into a peace negotiation suggesting you're willing, than to block any talks at all.
Why? They've made it clear that they're willing provided Ukraine makes a bunch of concessions that Ukraine won't make. This is asking for an unconditional ceasefire, which Russia has been clear for years is off the table. And it would disadvantage them militarily. They have no reason to change their position -- for them, peace talks require preconditions, and Ukraine (rightly) rejects all of them.
What Russia wants is just that...a want. Their position where they allow for no compromises is a bluff where they bet nobody dares to call their bluff. Which might be a good bet, we'll see.
It's not a bluff, though. A bluff would have been making threats and then not invading Ukraine.
But Russia invaded Ukraine. They've been at war for three years. Putin is entirely prepared to continue. There's no bluff here. Putin is being entirely serious about his conditions to end the war peacefully, because if he doesn't get them he has zero problems with continuing the war to try to get what he wants by force.
But Russia invaded Ukraine. They've been at war for three years. Putin is entirely prepared to continue. There's no bluff here. Putin is being entirely serious about his conditions to end the war peacefully, because if he doesn't get them he has zero problems with continuing the war to try to get what he wants by force.
Ukraine will not agree to both "never part of NATO" and "no peace force". Maybe one or the other, if pushed hard enough, but both together are a guarantee of Russian aggression. Immediately, in the form of border skirmishes, cyber-warfare, and assassinations.
Putin is going to have to think long and hard about what he can spin as a victory, because "undefended Ukraine" is not on the table.
Personally, I'd say he'd be better off abandoning the NATO one. Hungary can keep Ukraine out of NATO indefinitely. It would take some spin, but honestly, he could just claim "Ukraine will never join NATO" and that'll be true-enough for his audience.
Putin is going to have to think long and hard about what he can spin as a victory, because "undefended Ukraine" is not on the table.
Personally, I'd say he'd be better off abandoning the NATO one. Hungary can keep Ukraine out of NATO indefinitely. It would take some spin, but honestly, he could just claim "Ukraine will never join NATO" and that'll be true-enough for his audience.
Will Russia agree?
IMO no. Russian conditions for a ceasefire have been pretty clear: There should be a concrete idea of the starting positions for negotiations, and what the sides will be negotiating over. The current starting positions are still incredibly far apart.
Even if they do, they've broken practically all agreements they've entered.
I'm sure they'll break it and lie about it and yell that Ukraine broke it first. Should be fairly easy for the west to verify though.
I'm sure they'll break it and lie about it and yell that Ukraine broke it first. Should be fairly easy for the west to verify though.
Even if Russia breaks the ceasefire, there is likely no punishment coming from the US. Unlike Ukraine, where breaking the ceasefire gives another excuse for the US to stop providing aid.
[deleted]
beebaween(2)
Looks like we're waiting on Russia. Young people dying to drones needs to be addressed in the Geneva convention. Each of those deaths looked particularly cruel and unusual, they were all begging for mercy (I only saw a little bit of one). It was like an actual Valkyrie over them.
Do you believe nobody ever begged for their life during WW2? If this is your first time being able to understand the horror of war, you simply lacked imagination, or worse, chose to remain ignorant and not notice the horrors wrought in past wars.
Or do you somehow believe that getting exploded by a 155mm Howitzer, or skewered on a pike, or swiss cheesed by a 50cal, or drowning with 150 of your friends in a sinking ship, or dying in agony from disease in a cramped room with hundreds of others that smells of death and rot, or being eaten by sharks in the pacific, or evaporating in a ball of plasma and radiation, or roasted alive in a pill box by sticky gasoline from a flamethrower, or being trampled by a horse, or suffocating under a mixture of mud and your best friend's blood, or or or or.... is more dignified or less horrifying than a flying land mine?
See Brandon F show an example of the raw brutality of linear warfare, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hP3SeJIVFk
There is nothing "cruel or unusual" about drones. Nothing at all. This is what war has always been.
Do you think people were being hyperbolic when they explained "war is hell"? Do you think soldiers with PTSD were just sissies and overreacting?
Did you think war was Glorious? Or Just? Or Noble? Or virtuous in literally any way?
Or do you somehow believe that getting exploded by a 155mm Howitzer, or skewered on a pike, or swiss cheesed by a 50cal, or drowning with 150 of your friends in a sinking ship, or dying in agony from disease in a cramped room with hundreds of others that smells of death and rot, or being eaten by sharks in the pacific, or evaporating in a ball of plasma and radiation, or roasted alive in a pill box by sticky gasoline from a flamethrower, or being trampled by a horse, or suffocating under a mixture of mud and your best friend's blood, or or or or.... is more dignified or less horrifying than a flying land mine?
See Brandon F show an example of the raw brutality of linear warfare, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hP3SeJIVFk
There is nothing "cruel or unusual" about drones. Nothing at all. This is what war has always been.
Do you think people were being hyperbolic when they explained "war is hell"? Do you think soldiers with PTSD were just sissies and overreacting?
Did you think war was Glorious? Or Just? Or Noble? Or virtuous in literally any way?
War had always been horrible. Drone attacks are no exception.
No one is gonna give up the option, given their effectiveness.
No one is gonna give up the option, given their effectiveness.
https://youtube.com/shorts/izildGlrEVg
I believe most of these people are not being killed when they beg like this. Nonetheless, the rules of war should try to preserve dignity in death. It needs to be codified at least, even if it’s violated, and perhaps some future generation will litigate the sin.
The brutality of this war probably hasn’t all gotten out.
I believe most of these people are not being killed when they beg like this. Nonetheless, the rules of war should try to preserve dignity in death. It needs to be codified at least, even if it’s violated, and perhaps some future generation will litigate the sin.
The brutality of this war probably hasn’t all gotten out.
The reality is that both sides still kill someone begging like that. Both sides are using over at least a 1,000+ drones a day and yet only 1-2 videos of this nature come out every month.
far more than one or two; easily 5+ a day just in reddit r/combatfootage, and there are many similar subreddits, many pro-Russian or pro-Ukrainian.
The AFU suggested that they see maybe a 40-60% kill rate -- "kill" as in hit and damage; casualty rate -- from drones.
so you're only seeing the 40% that actually do anything, and of those, the ones that can be released, both for OPSEC, as well as simple logistics like having enough bandwidth to upload or time to edit.
The AFU suggested that they see maybe a 40-60% kill rate -- "kill" as in hit and damage; casualty rate -- from drones.
so you're only seeing the 40% that actually do anything, and of those, the ones that can be released, both for OPSEC, as well as simple logistics like having enough bandwidth to upload or time to edit.
That person looks to be surrendering; killing a prisoner of war is already a war crime. Drones don't change this.
You can't surrender to a jet on a bombing run, and a jet has the range to chase you to the oppositions lines.
You can't surrender to a UAV that doesn't have the battery to follow you back to the opposition's lines.
You can't surrender to a UAV that doesn't have the battery to follow you back to the opposition's lines.
People have surrendered to both.
The same logistical challenge exists if you’re captured by an injured person.
Or if one guy has 93 prisoners to manage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A9o_Major
The same logistical challenge exists if you’re captured by an injured person.
Or if one guy has 93 prisoners to manage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A9o_Major
Yes there are outliers but it is not the norm nor is it able to be made the norm in war and you know that. Door gunners on helicopters didn't accept surrender as choppers flew over territory. This is no different.
> This is no different.
This is precisely my point.
We are not gonna get a new Geneva Convention banning drones.
This is precisely my point.
We are not gonna get a new Geneva Convention banning drones.
You think death by drone is somehow more cruel or unusual than death by artillery shell, or machine gun, or landmine, or bomb, or missile?
War is cruel and unusual.
Geneva convention-type rules, like bans against cluster munitions, are usually less about what soliders do to each other, but more about protecting civilians. But targeted drones on the front lines pose virtually no danger to civilians at all.
War is cruel and unusual.
Geneva convention-type rules, like bans against cluster munitions, are usually less about what soliders do to each other, but more about protecting civilians. But targeted drones on the front lines pose virtually no danger to civilians at all.
There’s a sadistic element here with the footage. It’s torturing an animal at the very end. There should be a clear rules of surrender here.
Indiscriminate bombing is a major sin. We have no way of litigating the current war criminals, but ICC has warrants out on some. There’s a sadistic element to cutting off food and water.
Indiscriminate bombing is a major sin. We have no way of litigating the current war criminals, but ICC has warrants out on some. There’s a sadistic element to cutting off food and water.
> There’s a sadistic element here with the footage. It’s torturing an animal at the very end.
Not intentionally. It takes time for the drone operator to target. There's no torture. And drone attacks are the complete opposite of indiscriminate bombing.
> There should be a clear rules of surrender here.
That would be wonderful if it were possible. But how on earth could you implement it in practice? These attacks take place on Russian front lines, often kilometers away from Ukranian front lines. The drone has enough battery to quickly fly out with a heavy explosive and attack. It doesn't have enough battery to slowly escort a soldier walking back across the no-man's-land. And even if it did, Russian forces would surely be ordered to shoot deserters. Putin doesn't care about losing lives, as evidenced by the entire war.
You can't individually surrender when you're on your own front lines. You have to make it to your enemy's controlled territory first. (An entire unit can surrender, of course, but that's effectively giving your unit's territory to the enemy first. An individual soldier doesn't have territory to give.)
Not intentionally. It takes time for the drone operator to target. There's no torture. And drone attacks are the complete opposite of indiscriminate bombing.
> There should be a clear rules of surrender here.
That would be wonderful if it were possible. But how on earth could you implement it in practice? These attacks take place on Russian front lines, often kilometers away from Ukranian front lines. The drone has enough battery to quickly fly out with a heavy explosive and attack. It doesn't have enough battery to slowly escort a soldier walking back across the no-man's-land. And even if it did, Russian forces would surely be ordered to shoot deserters. Putin doesn't care about losing lives, as evidenced by the entire war.
You can't individually surrender when you're on your own front lines. You have to make it to your enemy's controlled territory first. (An entire unit can surrender, of course, but that's effectively giving your unit's territory to the enemy first. An individual soldier doesn't have territory to give.)
I don't think it is more cruel for the victim. But I think it is more cruel for humanity, in lack of better word. I think the effect on the soldier that controls the weapon is different.
I don't see that happening. They're too simple and too effective for any military to ignore. The bomber drones cause more casualities than any other type of drone and most of them are just commericial off-the-shelf drones with very simple modifications.
You could say the same about chemical warfare.
I'm more worried about the missiles and bombs that Russia has been launching against civilians since the war started, including schools, emergency respondents, and hospitals than drones killing active war participants.
War of full of cruelties.
You've read about "foraging" to supply an army with food, which was done for millennia. Nice polite word. Do you know what it meant? It meant sending out soldiers to find farmers and force them to hand over their food, and next year's seed counts as food in this context. Pity the farmer's wife or daughter who hadn't hid well enough. Pity the farmer too.
War really is despicable.
You've read about "foraging" to supply an army with food, which was done for millennia. Nice polite word. Do you know what it meant? It meant sending out soldiers to find farmers and force them to hand over their food, and next year's seed counts as food in this context. Pity the farmer's wife or daughter who hadn't hid well enough. Pity the farmer too.
War really is despicable.
A ceasefire of just 30 days seems like a good starting point, does not require any major concessions from either side and puts the ball in Russia’s court.
Given the US backing of this proposal, if Russia declines, it sends a pretty clear message about the “reasonableness” of their position (which obviously hasn’t ever been anything close to “reasonable”) and I think makes it that much harder for the Donald to side with them (though who can really predict what he’ll do).
If they agree, then hopefully this gives Ukraine just a bit of respite and starts a change of trajectory of this war. It also seems to be a small enough step to help Ukraine and the US realign - as far as that is possible - without looking like a major walk-back of the US position or looking like Ukraine has been strong-armed into something they didn’t really want to agree to (aka minerals deal without guarantees - though that may come next).
Still so many challenges ahead but I really hope this ceasefire happens.