Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Just the Facts: Ukraine-Russia Ceasefire

News

Just the Facts: Ukraine-Russia Ceasefire

Ukraine map and Russian and Ukrainian flags

Getty Images/chibosaigon

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


What is the status of the March 11, 2025 Ukraine-Russia ceasefire proposal?

As of March 11, 2025, Ukraine has officially accepted a U.S.-proposed, immediate 30-day ceasefire in its conflict with Russia, contingent upon Russia's reciprocal agreement. The United States has lifted previous restrictions on military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine that were imposed eight days ago.


This agreement, reached during talks in Saudi Arabia, is contingent on Russia's acceptance and includes provisions for halting hostilities and initiating negotiations for a lasting resolution.

Russian officials have not yet provided an official response to the ceasefire proposal. Some Russian officials and commentators have expressed skepticism, suggesting that the ceasefire could be a tactic for Ukraine to regroup and rearm.

The international community awaits Russia's response to the ceasefire proposal, which is seen as a critical step toward ending the ongoing conflict and establishing lasting peace in the region.


What details are available about specific provisions that may be part of the potential agreement?

The proposed Ukraine-Russia ceasefire includes several specific provisions designed to halt the ongoing conflict and pave the way for future negotiations. The key provisions, as currently outlined, are:

Military Measures

  • Immediate Halt to Fighting:
    Complete cessation of military operations, including artillery, missile, drone, and naval attacks across the entire frontline.
  • Withdrawal of Heavy Weapons:
    Mutual agreement to move heavy weapons away from frontline areas, establishing buffer zones to reduce accidental or deliberate provocations.

Humanitarian Measures

  • Prisoner Exchange:
    Exchange and release of prisoners of war and civilians detained during the conflict.
  • Return of Displaced Civilians:
    Facilitate the return of Ukrainian civilians forcibly relocated or displaced by the conflict, including thousands of Ukrainian children moved into Russian-held territory.

Diplomatic and Monitoring Measures

  • International Observers:
    Deployment of neutral international observers to ensure compliance with ceasefire terms and promptly investigate any violations.
  • Renewed Peace Negotiations:
    Immediate steps to resume comprehensive peace talks to address broader territorial, security, and diplomatic issues.

Economic Cooperation

  • Resource Management Discussions: Possible discussions on collaborative economic arrangements, including mineral rights, aimed at reducing economic tension and stabilizing both countries' economies.

Has there been a pause in hostilities while the ceasefire is being negotiated?

Despite Ukraine's acceptance of a U.S.-proposed 30-day ceasefire, hostilities have continued. Russian forces launched air attacks on Ukrainian cities, including Kyiv and Kharkiv, shortly after the announcement. Russian President Vladimir Putin has not agreed to the ceasefire and has continued missile and drone attacks on Ukrainian cities. The international community awaits Russia's official response to the ceasefire proposal, with further diplomatic engagements planned to involve significant global stakeholders.


What details are available about Russia returning territories it currently occupies in Ukraine?

As of March 11, 2025, the proposed 30-day ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia does not include provisions for Russia to return territories it currently occupies in Ukraine. Discussions about territorial control remain a significant point of contention in the peace negotiations.

Ukraine's Position:

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has consistently maintained that any peace agreement must involve the restoration of Ukraine's territorial integrity, including the return of all occupied regions. In November 2022, Zelenskyy proposed a 10-point peace plan emphasizing the withdrawal of Russian forces from all occupied territories and the restoration of Ukraine's pre-2014 borders.

Russia's Position:

Russian President Vladimir Putin has firmly opposed relinquishing control over the occupied territories. In June 2024, Putin outlined Russia's terms for a ceasefire, demanding Ukraine recognize Russian sovereignty over the annexed regions of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia, including areas not fully controlled by Russian forces at that time. He also insisted that Ukraine abandon its aspirations to join NATO and adopt a neutral status.

International Perspectives:

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has suggested that Ukraine may need to make territorial concessions to achieve peace, acknowledging the improbability of Ukraine reclaiming all lost territories swiftly. This stance reflects a more stringent approach by the current U.S. administration compared to previous policies.

The ceasefire proposal focuses on halting active hostilities and initiating humanitarian measures, such as prisoner exchanges and the return of displaced civilians. However, the issue of territorial sovereignty remains unresolved, with both Ukraine and Russia holding firm to their respective positions. The international community continues to monitor the situation, advocating for negotiations that respect Ukraine's sovereignty while seeking a sustainable peace solution.


Kristina Becvar is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and Executive Director of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.


SUGGESTION:

Just the Facts: Canadian Tariffs

Just the Facts: Medicaid

Just the Facts: Trade Deficits

Just the Facts: DEI

Just the Facts: The Deficit



Read More

What the World Cup Teaches Us About Democracy

Charles De Ketelaere #17 of Belgium scores his team’s first goal past Unai Simon #23 of Spain during the FIFA World Cup 2026 Quarter Final match between Spain and Belgium at Los Angeles Stadium on July 10, 2026, in Inglewood, California.

(Photo by David Ramos/Getty Images)

What the World Cup Teaches Us About Democracy

As live sporting events go, nothing comes close to the World Cup. I was in the stands when South Africa, my birth country, hosted the event in 2010 after decades of exclusion from global athletics. In June of this year, I had a full-circle moment when South Africa played in the knockout rounds for the first time, and I stood with my two American sons, arms around them, singing South Africa's anthem — the only national anthem that weaves multiple languages into a single, unifying song. Later in the week, I was in the stands again, cheering Spain's win over Austria, a country to which my only connections are a brief holiday…and the fact that my mother's family fled from there during the Inquisition.

The magic of the World Cup is that everyone in the stands wears the flags and shirts of countries that are “theirs” in some way. For some, it’s where they were born; for others, where they live or where their ancestors hailed from. For some, it is simply a country they have adopted for the afternoon. It is impossible to know how deep a person’s connection runs simply by looking at them. And next to a person waving one team’s colors is a stranger, family member, or close friend supporting the opposing team—or wearing the jersey of a team that isn’t playing that day at all.

Keep ReadingShow less
​Former President Joe Biden, former President Barack Obama, former President George W. Bush, and former President Bill Clinton pose together.

Former President Joe Biden, former President Barack Obama, former President George W. Bush, and former President Bill Clinton pose ahead of the dedication ceremony for the opening of the Barack Obama Presidential Center, in John Lewis Plaza, on June 18, 2026, in Chicago, Illinois.

Pablo Martinez Monsivais - Pool / Getty Images

America Shouldn't Need a Political Savior to Hold It Together

America is waiting for a political savior, but the problem is structural.

This dynamic was illustrated during two recent broadcast appearances by journalist Katy Tur. Discussing modern secessionist movements on June 15, 2026, Tur found optimism in a poll showing 54 percent of Americans still believe we share core values, and she later expressed hope that future leaders could reunite the country.

Keep ReadingShow less
Constitution of the United State with the U.S. flag in the background.

The Framers designed a republic with the intention to manage factionalism through deliberate compromise and institutional guardrails, whereas 21st-century polarization often treats compromise as a moral failing.

Douglas Sacha, Getty Images

Our Framers on 21st Century Primaries and Polarization

The Framers would view 21st-century closed primaries and political polarization as the exact manifestation of "factionalism" they spent the 1787 Constitutional Convention trying to prevent. They would argue these systems force candidates to appeal to ideological extremes rather than the broad, moderate consensus required for stable governance.

The Danger of Factionalism: In Federalist No. 10, James Madison defined a "faction" as a group of citizens united by a passion or interest adverse to the rights of others. He argued that while factions are inevitable, their effects must be controlled. The Framers would recognize 21st-century hyper-polarization as the dominance of unyielding factions that prioritize absolute ideological purity over democratic compromise.

Keep ReadingShow less