So, my perspective comes from over a decade fighting wars as an infantry soldier, so you'll have to keep in mind that my perspective is one-sided. I think that the success of a ceasefire depends on the people sent to the round table, not the people on the battlefield. And the failure of a ceasefire depends on the people on the battlefield, not the people sent to the round table. This is an oversimplification, but I think you won't be provoking ceasefire failure by continuing to build out your defenses and digging in to hold the ground you have. Or preparing for defense in depth, or whatever. Maybe the terms of the ceasefire would have some special rules which make diplomats happy, but I think to every man on the ground with a gun, a ceasefire only means literally to cease fire, and you should not expect anything else. Clearly, from the numbers presented here, one should be prepared for the near certainty that if the ceasefire fails there will be an attack. It sounds reasonable to me to continue digging in while the ceasefire takes place. And certainly, as an infantry veteran, I fully expect the enemy to be making similar defensive preparations, as well, and planning for the tactical situation on the battlefield to reflect those kinds of changes upon the resumption of hostilities. The infantryman's motto: "Hope for the best, plan for the worst".