After three days of consultations in Saudi Arabia, finally some progress has been made.
Two separate texts outline the agreement between the US and Russia, the US and Ukraine.
There were some differences, but many were the same. All sides agreed to “ensure safe navigation, eliminate the use of force, and prevent the use of commercial vessels for military purposes in the Black Sea.”
They also agreed “to develop measures to implement an agreement to ban strikes against energy facilities in Russia and Ukraine.”
President Zelensky regretted that there was no explicit ban on attacks on private infrastructure, but sounded widely satisfied.
He said reporters will soon implement an energy ceasefire with the Black Sea.
He also nodded to his agenda with the United States, saying, “We will continue to commit to helping to achieve prisoner exchanges, release of civil detainees and return of deported Ukrainian children.”
However, later came the third document issued by the Kremlin.
It imposed conditions that did not appear in the original agreement between the US and Russia.
He said that the Black Sea ceasefire will only come into effect if sanctions on Russian banks, insurance companies, companies, ports and vessels are lifted.
In other words, they saw the deal not only as a revival of the old Black Sea Grain Initiative, which retreated in 2023, but also as an opportunity to roll back a considerable number of economic sanctions.
However, this takes time to do so, which can delay the maritime ceasefire.
Also, making all the changes that Russia has requested may not be a complete gift for the US.
For example, to return to the Swift Financial messaging system, you will need EU approval.
The Kremlin also said the 30-day suspension on energy strikes would be retreated to begin on March 18th and could be stopped if one side violates the transaction.
In other words, what was agreed is a vulnerable step towards some reduction in combat in Ukraine, but does not guarantee success in an atmosphere of mutual distrust.
Even if today’s agreement survives, it’s still a long way from the comprehensive national ceasefire the United States originally wanted.
It is often said that ceasefires are not events but processes. And that remains true to this Agreement.
The key is not to announce a ceasefire, but to whether or not it has been implemented, how it is implemented. In other words, the evidence of pudding is in the diet.
Will both parties make this transaction work and then respond? Because in answering these questions we learn a lot about what both parties really want.
Do they hope that the ceasefire will turn into a long-term peace? Or do they just want to trade while pushing their advantages into the home on the battlefield?
