After three days of negotiations in Saudi Arabia, some progress has been made toward a ceasefire in Ukraine. Two separate agreements were drafted—one between the US and Russia, and another between the US and Ukraine.
Despite some differences, both agreements shared key commitments, including ensuring safe navigation, eliminating the use of force in the Black Sea, and preventing commercial vessels from being used for military purposes. Additionally, both sides agreed to develop measures to prevent strikes on energy facilities in Russia and Ukraine.
While Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky expressed disappointment over the lack of an explicit ban on attacks against civilian infrastructure, he remained generally optimistic. He announced that Ukraine would immediately implement the Black Sea and energy ceasefires. The US also reaffirmed its commitment to facilitating prisoner exchanges, securing the release of civilian detainees, and returning Ukrainian children who were forcibly taken.
However, a third document issued by the Kremlin introduced complications. It set conditions not previously agreed upon between the US and Russia. Russia insisted that the Black Sea ceasefire would only take effect if sanctions were lifted on Russian banks, insurers, companies, ports, and ships—allowing for the increased export of agricultural and fertilizer products.
This move suggests that Moscow sees the agreement as not just a return to the Black Sea Grain Initiative, which collapsed in 2023, but also as an opportunity to ease key economic sanctions. Since some of these measures require approval from the European Union—such as restoring Russia’s access to the SWIFT financial messaging system—lifting them could take time, potentially delaying any maritime ceasefire.
Additionally, the Kremlin declared that the 30-day pause on energy strikes would be retroactively applied from March 18 and could be suspended if either side violated the deal.
In essence, this agreement represents a fragile step toward reducing hostilities, but it remains uncertain whether it will lead to a broader ceasefire. Deep-seated mistrust continues to shape the conflict, making implementation the real test.
A ceasefire is not just a moment in time but a process. What truly matters is not the declaration of an agreement but how it is enforced. The question remains: will both sides honor their commitments and work toward lasting peace, or will they use this deal merely as a temporary strategy while continuing to pursue their battlefield objectives?
