Abstract: The successful implementation of the Minsk Protocol has been impugned from the moment of its signing due to ambiguous interpretations of its nature and intentions. The main issues pertain to understanding of the conflict in the Southeast of Ukraine as an intergovernmental, internationalized or domestic political one, the legitimacy and status of the parties to agreement, as well as the role of the international community in settlement of the conflict. The indicated contradictions are also reflected in the difference of approaches towards definition of the conceptual apparatus, as well as its interpretation. The problem at hand goes beyond the scope of political science or legal analysis, and requires comprehensive examination based on the variety of theoretical and methodological approaches. The author agrees with the characterization of conflict in the Southeast of Ukraine as a formalized political unsettled situation. From the political and legal perspectives, the agreements on halting the war demonstrate typical examples of challenges and problems that emerge during negotiations and implementation of the internationalized peace treaties of the post-Cold War period. The refusal of one of the parties, usually the country which territorial integrity is disputed by the non-state party, to meet the other party in the course of peace negotiations is a typical complication of the negotiation processes. Direct negotiations, i.e. meetings where the parties to negotiation make eye contact, can be interpreted as the acts of implicit recognition of non-state parties, their representatives, as well as respective claims. Such different perspective on the mandate, accountability, responsibility, and the status of “direct” and “third” parties in course of negotiation and implementation of peace treaties are typical contradictions. Throughout the entire period of elaboration, signing, and implementation of the agreements, the clash of interests virtually shifted towards the interpretation of terminology.