Nearly 20 hours of talks in Minsk between the leaders of Russia, Ukraine, Germany and France over the crisis in eastern Ukraine ended with an agreement early Thursday morning. At the very least, the deal demonstrates the diplomatic will on all sides to produce an agreement after several weeks of intensified fighting between Ukrainian security forces and pro-Russia separatists. However, the evolution of the Ukrainian crisis will depend on how — or even whether — the agreement can actually be implemented. Some of the issues addressed in the deal are controversial, and others are open to interpretation, so the agreement's true significance will only become evident in the coming days and weeks.

In terms of technical details, the agreement largely mirrors the cease-fire agreement signed in early September. It calls for a full-scale cease-fire to begin at midnight on Feb. 15 and for both sides to withdraw heavy weaponry, starting no later than the second day of the cease-fire and taking no longer than 14 days. The agreement also calls for a pullout of all foreign armed forces and mercenaries from territories in eastern Ukraine, a process that will be monitored by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe with support from the Trilateral Contact Group. In addition, the deal calls for certain political rights for the separatist-controlled territories — including the ability to hold local elections, local self-governance, special status in particular districts of the Donetsk and Luhansk provinces — and for changes to the Ukrainian Constitution to enshrine these measures into law. Conditional upon Kiev's passing these measures by the end of 2015, Ukraine could then be granted control over its border with Russia.

The agreement comprehensively covers a range of issues that have been points of contention between Kiev and Moscow, especially regarding the status of the separatist territories. The deal essentially gives the territories de facto autonomy, regardless of any political statements made to save face in Kiev, and it takes a step toward recognition of these regions as distinct from the Ukrainian core. However, this comprehensiveness will make the deal very difficult to fulfill. Each measure in the agreement comes with a great deal of conditionality, and failure in any measure could unravel the agreement. This is why the importance of the pact ultimately comes down to its implementation, beginning with the cease-fire on Feb. 15.

Given the ineffectiveness of previous agreements to establish a real and lasting cease-fire, there is a great deal of uncertainty that this latest deal will work. But what stands out about the agreement is the context in which it was made. As a result of the Ukrainian crisis, relations between Russia and the West have deteriorated to their lowest point since the end of the Cold War. The economic and diplomatic pressure the West has put Moscow under has not deterred Russia from its involvement in the conflict; rather, it has led to a more active and aggressive Russian posture in Ukraine. In the meantime, NATO and especially the United States have made plans to build up forces and equipment throughout Eastern Europe and to increase military cooperation with Ukraine and other former Soviet countries, such as Georgia. This intensification from both sides has raised the risk of a broader military conflict. The Europeans billed the latest talks in Minsk as the last "glimmer of hope" for a diplomatic resolution to the crisis.

This explains why the talks were so high-level, why they lasted as long as they did and why they produced a formal agreement. A failure to reach a deal in the negotiations would have been seen as the prelude to a much worse outcome. However, this means the deal will be under much greater scrutiny in terms of its implementation. The Europeans are more willing than before to impose costs if the cease-fire fails. This gives Russia a strong incentive to follow through with its end of the deal, because Moscow could expect a much stronger reaction from the West — including an expansion of sanctions, but also weapons sales and even potentially troop deployments to Ukraine — if it does not appear to comply with the cease-fire and the subsequent stipulations in the agreement.

But even in the best-case scenario, in which the Minsk agreement is upheld, the much broader and deeper issues driving the standoff between Russia and the West remain. The Ukraine crisis is a collision of the United States' and Russia's competing and contradictory imperatives: Russia must have buffer space in its periphery, especially in Ukraine, and the United States must stifle the regional hegemony that such buffer space would give to Russia. This is why the U.S. response and commitment to any diplomatic resolution are crucial for Russia. Furthermore, it is why Russian actions will be shaped not only by the Ukrainian and European approach to the conflict, but also — and especially — the U.S. position. Another major question is how far Russia will go in withdrawing while the United States continues its plans to increase security cooperation in the region and send military trainers into Ukraine.

With the implementation of the first step days away, it is too early to determine the true significance of the Minsk agreement. All sides want a de-escalation now — Germany needs to focus on the eurozone, Russia needs to avoid new sanctions and try to ease the ones in place, and Ukraine needs to rebuild its economy. But this alignment on de-escalation is temporary, and the implications of a breakdown in this agreement are much clearer and much more serious.