Long, slow road to ceasefire Russia-Ukraine

After three days of negotiations in Saudi Arabia, some progress finally.

Two separate texts outlined between the US and Russia and the USA and Ukraine.

There were some differences, but much was the same. All parties agreed “to provide 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 for implementation … Agreement on the ban on the energy facilities of Russia and Ukraine”.

The President Zelensky regretted that there was no obvious ban on attacks on civil infrastructure, but he was widely satisfied.

He told the journalists Ukraine, which immediately sells the Black Sea and energy funds.

He also nodded on his agenda from the United States, saying that “he would remain committed to helping with the exchange of prisoners of war, the release of civilian detainees and the return of forcibly transferred Ukrainian children.”

But then came the third document issued by the Kremlin that confused the water.

This imposed conditions that did not appear in the original agreement between the US and Russia.

It states that the ceasefire of the Black Sea will only come into force when sanctions were lifted on Russian banks, insurers, companies, ports and ships that would allow it to export more agriculture and fertilizer goods.

In other words, they saw this transaction not only as the revival of the old black sea grain initiative, which they pulled in 2023, but also the opportunity to return a significant number of economic sanctions.

However, this can take some time and thus delay any marine ceasefire.

It can also be fully in the US gift to make all the changes requested by Russia.

For example, any return to a quick financial message will require EU permit.

The Kremlin also stated that a 30-day pause on energy strikes will apply until March 18 and can be suspended if one side violated the transaction.

In other words, what has been agreed is a delicate step towards a decrease in fighting in Ukraine, but without the guarantee of success against the background of the atmosphere of mutual distrust.

Even if today’s agreement survived, it is still a long way from the comprehensive ceasefire that the United States originally wanted.

It is often said that ceasefire is processes, not events. And it’s just as exactly as ever for this agreement.

It is important not to announce any ceasefire, but when and how it is implemented. In other words, the proof of pudding will be in food.

Will both sides make the case work and then live to it? Because in response to these questions we learn a lot about what both parties really want.

Do they want the ceasefire turned into long -term peace? Or they just want to trade by pushing home their advantage on the battlefield?