After three days of negotiations in Saudi Arabia, some progress has been made on a potential ceasefire between Russia, Ukraine, and the US, though key differences still remain.
Two separate agreements were reached: one between the US and Russia, and another between the US and Ukraine. Despite some discrepancies, both sides largely agreed on principles to “ensure safe navigation, eliminate the use of force, and prevent the use of commercial vessels for military purposes in the Black Sea.” Additionally, there was a mutual commitment to ban strikes on energy infrastructure in both Russia and Ukraine.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky expressed some dissatisfaction that there was no explicit ban on attacks on civilian infrastructure, but he was otherwise positive about the outcome. He confirmed Ukraine’s intention to implement the ceasefire measures concerning the Black Sea and energy strikes immediately. Zelensky also highlighted the US’s continued support for Ukraine’s priorities, such as the exchange of prisoners of war and the return of forcibly transferred Ukrainian children.
However, complications arose with a third document issued by the Kremlin. This document added conditions to the original agreement that were not part of the US-Russia discussions. The Kremlin’s version stipulates that the Black Sea ceasefire will only take effect if sanctions on Russian banks, insurers, companies, ports, and ships are lifted to allow the country to export more agricultural and fertilizer goods. This demand is seen by Russia as an opportunity to revive the Black Sea Grain Initiative, which it withdrew from in 2023, but it also introduces a potential delay in the ceasefire due to the complexities of sanction adjustments. Moreover, certain changes, like reintroducing Russia to the SWIFT financial system, would require approval from the European Union.
The Kremlin also added that the 30-day pause on energy strikes would be retroactively applied from March 18 and could be suspended if either side violates the agreement. This added a layer of fragility to the deal, as there are no guarantees that both sides will abide by it.
The overall agreement marks a fragile step toward de-escalation, but it remains far from a comprehensive ceasefire. While it represents a potential reduction in hostilities, the real test will be how these measures are implemented and whether both sides can uphold them. The broader question is whether this will lead to a longer-term peace or if both sides will continue pursuing their objectives on the battlefield while using the ceasefire for strategic gains.
The outcome will depend on how both parties navigate the complex dynamics of mutual distrust, economic pressures, and military strategy in the coming days.