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

Trump’s Anti-Latino Racism is a Major Liability for Democracy

Close-up of sign reading 'Immigrants Make America Great' at a Baltimore rally.

Trump’s Anti-Latino Racism is a Major Liability for Democracy

Donald Trump’s second administration has fully clarified Latinos’ racial position in America: our ethnic group’s labor, culture, and aspirations are too much for his supporters to stomach. The Latino presence in America triggers too many uneasy questions (are they White?), too many doubts (are they really American?), and too much resentment (why are they doing better than me?).

Trump’s targeted deportations of undocumented Latinos, unwarranted arrests of Latino citizens, and heightened ICE presence in Latino neighborhoods address these worries by lumping Latinos with Black people. Simply put, we have become yet another visible population that America socially stigmatizes, economically exploits, and politically terrorizes because aggrieved White adults want to preserve their rank as our nation’s premier racial group. The cumulative impacts are serious: just yesterday, an international panel of investigators on human rights and racism, backed by the U.N., found that such actions have resulted in “grave human rights violations.”

Keep ReadingShow less
People waving US flags

People waving US flags

LeoPatrizi/Getty Images

Democracy Fellowship Spotlight: Joel Gurin on Trustworthy Data

Earlier this year, the Bridge Alliance and the National Academy of Public Administration launched the Fellows for Democracy and Public Service Initiative to strengthen the country's civic foundations. This fellowship unites the Academy’s distinguished experts with the Bridge Alliance’s cross‑sector ecosystem to elevate distributed leadership throughout the democracy reform landscape. Instead of relying on traditional, top‑down models, the program builds leadership ecosystems: spaces where people share expertise, prioritize collaboration, and use public‑facing storytelling to renew trust in democratic institutions. Each fellow grounds their work in one of six core sectors essential to a thriving democratic republic.

Recently, I interviewed Joel Gurin, who founded and now leads the Center for Open Data Enterprise (CODE) and wrote Open Data Now. Before launching CODE in 2015, he chaired the White House Task Force on Smart Disclosure, which studied how open government data can improve consumer markets. He also led as Chief of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at the Federal Communications Commission and spent over a decade at Consumer Reports.

Keep ReadingShow less
Kristi Noem facing away with her hand up to be sworn in as she testifies.

U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem is sworn in as she testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on March 03, 2026 in Washington, DC. The Department of Homeland Security has faced criticism over it's handling of immigration enforcement leaving the department unfunded.

Getty Images, Andrew Harnik

Kristi Noem is a Criminal. They Fired Her Because She’s a Woman

Kristi Noem deserved to get axed. After ignoring thousands of stories of officers detaining American citizens in violent, indiscriminate, unconstitutional roundups, posing for a gleeful photo-op at a hellacious El Salvadoran prison, labeling American protesters as domestic terrorists, and lying under oath multiple times, Democrats and even many Republicans lauded her exodus. Still, in what was a brief, volatile tenure as Secretary of Homeland Security, Noem transformed the agency charged with the protection of the American people into a theater for performative cruelty. Now, as the door hits Noem on the way out, it is important to note that her ouster was not a triumph of ethics or the law or even a sudden recollection of what competence looks like. Despite no lack of legitimate grounds for dismissal, most sources say the final straw was a $220 million ad blitz, possibly complicated by an alleged affair with her adviser. But who among Trump’s inner circle doesn’t come with a laundry list of wasteful spending and personal embarrassments? The rest of the Cabinet is chock full of unqualified Trump-loyalists demonstrating incompetence so regularly that in any other era they would have all resigned or been canned long ago. Given the purported reasons Noem was ultimately fired, and where the conversation has lingered since, to the untrained eye, it seems like Noem may have been the first to get the boot, at least in part because she’s not a man.

There’s nothing Noem did that another member of the cabinet or Trump himself couldn’t top. Consider the shameful tenure of our Secretary of Commerce, Howard Lutnick, who engaged in intimate business deals with Epstein years after Epstein’s first conviction, and even planned family vacations to his private island. While Noem is fired for a $220 million ad buy, Lutnick remains the face of American business, despite once being in business with a convicted sex trafficker and lying about it. And our wannabe-fraternity-pledgemaster Secretary of War Pete Hegseth is, if possible, an even greater liability. Hegseth breached security protocol in his second month on the job and oversaw a record $93 billion of spending in a single month, $9 million going to king crab and lobster tails, and $15 million to ribeye steaks. More gravely, in his zeal to project “lethality," Hegseth gutted civilian harm mitigation programs by 90 percent; shortly thereafter, on his watch, in what is the most devastating single military error in modern history, the U.S. fired a Tomahawk missile into a school full of children, killing at least 168 children and 14 teachers. Noem may have turned federal agents against American civilians (which is not why she was fired), but Hegseth is committing war crimes around the globe.

Keep ReadingShow less
A balance.

A retired New York judge criticizes President Trump’s actions on tariffs, judicial defiance, alleged corruption, and executive overreach, warning of threats to constitutional order and the rule of law in the United States.

Getty Images

A Pay‑to‑Play Presidency Testing the Limits of Our Institutions

Another day, another outrage, and another attack on the Constitution that this President has twice taken a vow to uphold. Instead of accepting the Supreme Court decision striking down his imposition of tariffs, the President is now imposing them by executive order and excoriating the Justices who ruled against him. His disrespect for the Constitution and the judiciary is boundless.

To this retired New York State judge, all hell seems to have broken loose in our federal government. Congress lies dormant when it is not enabling the chief executive’s misuse and personal acquisition of federal funds, and, notwithstanding its recent tariffs ruling, a majority of the Supreme Court generally rubber-stamps the administration’s actions through opaque “shadow docket” rulings. In doing so, SCOTUS abdicates its role as an independent check.

Keep ReadingShow less