After three -day talks in Saudi Arabia, finally some progress.
Two separate texts summarizing the agreements between the US and Russia and the United States and Ukraine.
There were some differences, but a lot was the same. All parties agreed to “provide safe navigation, eliminate the use of power and prevent the use of commercial ships for military purposes in the Black Sea”.
They also adopted “development of measures for implementation … Russia and Ukraine’s agreement to prohibit strikes against energy facilities”.
President Zelensky regretted that there was no clear ban on attacks on civil infrastructure, but heard a wide content.
He told journalists that Ukraine would immediately implement the Black Sea and energy fiery fire.
He also shook his agenda, saying that the US would be determined to help the US exchange of prisoners, the release of civilian prisoners and the return of Ukrainian children who were forced to be forced. “
But then a third document given by the Kremlin and waters muddy came.
It brought invisible conditions in the original agreement between the US and Russia.
He said that the Black Sea ceasefire will only enter into force when sanctions on Russian banks, insurers, companies, ports and ships that will allow more agriculture and fertilizer goods to export goods.
In other words, they saw this agreement not only as a revival of the old Black Sea cereal attempt in 2023, but also the opportunity to reclaim a significant number of economic sanctions.
However, it may take some time to do so and thus delay any sea fever.
In addition, making all the changes requested by Russia may not be entirely a gift of the United States.
For example, return to the fast financial messaging system requires EU approval.
President Zelensky said that the agreement was a step in the right direction [Reuters]
The Kremlin also said that the 30 -day pause on energy strikes will return to start on March 18 and that one party could be suspended if it violates the agreement.
In other words, what is agreed is a fragile step towards a slight reduction of the struggle in Ukraine, but there is no guarantee of success in the middle of the atmosphere of mutual insecurity.
Even if today’s agreement is going to survive, the US wants is still far from a comprehensive ceasefire.
It is often said that fires are processes, not events. And this agreement is right as usual.
The important thing is not the announcement of any ceasefire, but how and how it is applied. In other words, the proof of the pudding will be eating.
Will both parties put this agreement and then live? Because in the answer to these questions, we will learn a lot about what both sides really want.
Do they want the ceasefire to turn into a long -term peace? Or do they just want to trade while pressing their advantages on the battlefield?
