Disinfo: Ukraine refuses to observe a truce in Donbas


Kyiv refuses to agree on new points for the withdrawal of armaments and manpower from the line of contact in Donbas, as well as to observe a truce.


Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative about the war in Ukraine.

Ukraine has never claimed that it does not want to implement the Minsk agreements. On the contrary, implementation of the agreements remains one of the key priorities of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

At the beginning of June 2020, during a working visit to Germany by the Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, Andriy Yermak discussed the security and humanitarian situation in eastern Ukraine with Germany's Federal Minister of Defence Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer.

Mr Yermak stressed that in order to accelerate progress towards peace, it is necessary, first of all, to ensure the implementation of the agreements reached by the leaders of the Normandy format countries at the December summit in Paris, in particular, to ensure full and comprehensive implementation of the ceasefire.

"The cessation of shelling is a basic condition for further disengagement of forces and demining," the Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine said.

After the COVID-19 pandemic began, the Ukrainian side proposed to hold the negotiations conducted by the Trilateral Contact Group in video format.

Since 2014, negotiations with Russia to resolve the conflict in the Donbas have been held within the framework of the Normandy Format and the Minsk process. A special Trilateral contact group is working on a peaceful settlement of the situation in Donbas. Three parties are involved in this process: representatives of Ukraine, Russia and the OSCE. Unofficially, representatives of the "LDNR" factions are also present.

The second set of measures to implement the Minsk agreements was signed on 12 February 2015. The first paragraph of the document relates to an immediate ceasefire. Next, it is necessary to withdraw heavy weapons, ensure OSCE monitoring, release prisoners, grant Donbas special status and hold local elections, provide amnesty to the parties involved in the conflict and restore control over the Ukrainian-Russian border in the conflict zone. There are no conditions that the Ukrainian authorities should conduct direct negotiations with the leaders of the "LDNR" factions in the Minsk agreements.

Read similar cases alleging that Ukraine does not advance in the implementation of the Minsk agreements under Zelenskyy, that Kyiv does not want to implement the current Minsk agreements, that Ukraine does not want to implement the Minsk agreements because it is controlled by the West, or that Kyiv has not implemented the conditions of "Minsk-2" for five years.


  • Reported in: Issue 201
  • DATE OF PUBLICATION: 12/06/2020
  • Language/target audience: Russian
  • Country: Ukraine
  • Keywords: Volodymyr Zelensky, War in Ukraine, Donbas, Minsk agreements


Cases in the EUvsDisinfo database focus on messages in the international information space that are identified as providing a partial, distorted, or false depiction of reality and spread key pro-Kremlin messages. This does not necessarily imply, however, that a given outlet is linked to the Kremlin or editorially pro-Kremlin, or that it has intentionally sought to disinform. EUvsDisinfo publications do not represent an official EU position, as the information and opinions expressed are based on media reporting and analysis of the East Stratcom Task Force.

see more

After Russia’s expulsion G7 lost its relevance

While Moscow was part of G8, the format worked more effectively. G8 used to be a body for the management of political and economic global problems, while G7 turned into an aristocratic club of leaders of Western countries. Without Russia’s participation, and given that many of the questions discussed there, such as economy, trade or armed conflicts solution, are related to Moscow, the format became inefficient, and in the last years G7 lost its relevance.


Recurrent pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative expressing resentment about Russia’s suspension from the international bodies and calling for its readmission, without addressing the reasons behind these moves (in this case, the illegal annexation of Crimea).

Contrary to the claim, G7 is neither ineffective nor an elitist club. It is capable of setting the global agenda because decisions taken by its members have a real impact. The political direction set by these leaders on policy issues will have a “ripple” effect across many other international organisations and institutions. Thus, decisions taken at the G7 are not legally binding, but exert strong political influence.

Russia was expelled from G8 for no real reason

Russia was expelled from the G8 after the reincorporation of Crimea to its territory, this is, for having respected the will of the population of the peninsula and having protected the Crimeans. French president Emmanuel Macron said in 2019 that reinstating Russia without solving the crisis of Ukraine would be a “strategic mistake”, but this is a really strange affirmation given that the Russian government said many times that it is not taking part directly in that conflict.


Recurrent pro-Kremlin disinformation narratives about the illegal annexation of Crimea, and war in Ukraine.

G8 members suspended Russia as a response for the violation of international law caused by the illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014. Crimea was illegally annexed by Moscow after an illegitimate referendum. On 27 March 2014, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution in which it stated that the referendum in Crimea was not valid and could not serve as a basis for any change in the status of the peninsula. On 17th December 2018, the UN General Assembly confirmed its non-recognition of the illegal annexation of Crimea. There is extensive evidence of Russia’s involvement in the conflict in Eastern Ukraine (see also here).

Washington uses the topic of fighting corruption as an instrument to control Ukraine

The United States is helping Ukraine, which is at war with its people. Residents of Donbas do not want to live under the rule of Kyiv, they do not agree with the results of the coup, so they tried to defend constitutional order in the country. The fact that the United States is allocating funds to Ukraine demonstrates the fact of intervention in this conflict, as well as support for actions that violate the law and international law. Such assistance will be used by the Kyiv authorities in armed actions against the residents of Donbas.

At the same time, Washington uses the topic of fighting corruption as a lever to pressure the Ukrainian authorities.

Corruption is a very convenient reason that the United States uses in a controlled country if it needs to be put under pressure. Undoubtedly, the level of corruption in today’s Ukraine is outrageous. But in this case, Washington uses this pretext to put its people in key positions, strengthen its influence on the Ukrainian government from the outside and blur the notion of state sovereignty.


Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narratives painting the war in Ukraine as something that was artificially orchestrated by the US as well as a recurring disinformation narrative questioning Ukrainian statehood.

The war in eastern Ukraine is not a Western-driven civil conflict but a well-documented act of aggression by Russian armed forces, ongoing since February 2014.