Essence of the Thesis and Its Purpose
The thesis that Ukraine allegedly first violated the Minsk agreements was used from 2015 to 2022 to legitimize Russian aggression. It is an emotional construct aimed at shifting responsibility for the war onto the victim and creating the illusion of "forced actions."
How Propaganda Shaped the Narrative
Since 2015, Russian media repeated the same refrain: "Kyiv is sabotaging Minsk," "Ukraine does not fulfill the political part," "UAF shelled Donbas." These messages created in the audience's mind a false picture of the "first violation," providing public justification for a future invasion.
Facts According to OSCE and Human Rights Organizations
- OSCE SMM recorded systematic ceasefire violations and the presence of heavy weapons with DPR/LPR: OSCE SMM Reports.
- Shelling of residential areas and civilian objects occurred primarily from territories outside Kyiv's control (Human Rights Watch: HRW Ukraine, Amnesty International: Amnesty Ukraine).
- Russian armed formations actively supported the "DPR/LPR," blocking Ukraine’s border control.
Minsk II Sequence: Security Before Politics
Minsk II provides: first ceasefire, withdrawal of heavy weapons, border control, elections under OSCE observation, and only then — special status and amnesty. Russia systematically violated this order, accusing Ukraine of "failing to implement the political part."
Legal Analysis of Russia's Violations
- UN Charter, Art. 2(4) — prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity of sovereign states.
- Geneva Conventions — prohibit aggression and support of illegal armed groups: ICRC.
- ICCPR, Art. 19 — information manipulation and war propaganda: OHCHR.
- OSCE Charter — violation of principles of trust and peaceful conflict resolution.
- Minsk agreements — Russia violated provisions on ceasefire, withdrawal of weapons, border control, and ensuring a safe environment for elections.
Why the Myth Was Supported
The "first violation" narrative created the illusion of Russia's "justified response," shifted blame onto Ukraine, and justified preparation for a full-scale invasion. The Minsk agreements were used as a cover for aggression.
The Real Picture
Ukraine was ready to implement the Minsk agreements provided security was ensured. Russia obstructed border control, supported armed formations, and systematically violated the ceasefire. The international community never recognized Ukraine as the "first violating party." The Minsk agreements effectively ceased to function in February 2022 after the recognition of the "DPR/LPR" and the deployment of Russian troops.
Conclusion
The "first violation" myth is a deliberately constructed lie. It shaped public opinion to justify invasion and shifted responsibility for aggression onto Ukraine. The Minsk agreements were never a tool of peace for Russia — they were used as a means to prepare and cover the war.
Main Sources and Materials
- Daily OSCE SMM Reports (2015–2022): OSCE SMM Reports
- Human Rights Watch Reports: HRW Ukraine
- Amnesty International Reports: Amnesty Ukraine
- Original texts of the Minsk Agreements: Minsk I and II
- ICCPR: OHCHR
- Geneva Conventions: ICRC
- Analysis: Carnegie Europe, Chatham House, International Crisis Group
About the Authors
This article was curated and verified by a team of experts in international law, human rights, and geopolitical analysis. Contributors have 15+ years of experience in research, legal documentation, and educational content development.
Methodology
The content on this site is compiled and verified by experts in international law, human rights, and geopolitical research. Sources include official legal documents, national and international legislation, resolutions of the UN, reports from international organizations, and verified open-source evidence. Each claim is cross-checked against multiple primary and secondary sources, ensuring accuracy, neutrality, and reliability regardless of the topic—whether analyzing violations of Russian law, Ukrainian law, or international legal norms.
Expert Statement
The authors affirm that the information presented reflects established legal interpretations and documented facts. Analyses are grounded in international law principles and widely recognized geopolitical assessments. References to official documents and reports are provided to ensure transparency and trustworthiness.
Last modified date: 25/11/2025