KYIV, Ukraine — Following three days of strenuous discussions, the Trump administration, Ukraine, and Russia have come to an agreement on a restricted ceasefire. However, disputes over key details, such as coverage and initiation, highlight the complex path toward a comprehensive truce.
The talks emphasized facilitating Black Sea shipping and stopping long-range strikes on energy infrastructure—areas where both parties have prior negotiation experience under U.S.-mediated indirect discussions. While many aspects remain unclear, it is crucial to examine the core components of this partial ceasefire and the implications for the upcoming weeks as discussions proceed.
The ceasefire commenced amidst challenges, with conflicting accounts surfacing immediately post-negotiation on Tuesday. Disparate views emerged regarding the commencement of halting energy site strikes, with accusations flying between the sides concerning breaches of the ceasefire. Russia’s participation in opening Black Sea shipping was contingent on the U.S. lifting sanctions, a condition rejected by Kyiv.
Russian authorities expressed optimism regarding the talks’ outcomes, while Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy viewed it as a promising step. Some Ukrainian officials, however, voiced dissatisfaction. Ukrainian lawmaker Yaroslav Zheleznyak pointed out that the agreement seemed more beneficial to the adversary, reflecting skepticism from within Ukraine.
Relief efforts around Black Sea shipping routes were highlighted as a focus of the agreement. The U.S. indicated a preliminary accord had been reached with Ukraine and Russia in separate talks to cease hostilities and guarantee safe passage in the Black Sea. Although the implementation and monitoring specifics were undisclosed, the agreement appeared as another effort to secure safe Black Sea shipping routes after Russia halted a previous U.N. and Turkey-mediated agreement in July 2023.
Russia’s stance was that the Black Sea deal could only proceed if sanctions against the Russian Agricultural Bank and other financial institutions were lifted, including regaining access to the SWIFT system for international payments. Despite subsequent U.S. assurances of aiding Russia’s reintegration into the agricultural and fertilizer export market, Zelenskyy accused Moscow of misrepresenting the agreement terms.
The potential benefits of this agreement for Ukraine remain uncertain, causing apprehension among Ukrainian officials. While the agreement might seem advantageous to Russia, it is unclear if it also encompasses halting assaults on Ukrainian ports. Lawmaker Zhelezniak expressed doubts about the deal’s capacity to significantly enhance Ukraine’s export potential, noting Ukraine’s independent efforts to enhance its Black Sea presence despite Russia withdrawing from prior agreements in 2023.
Following Russia’s withdrawal, Ukraine developed a trade route requiring ships to navigate close to the Bulgarian and Romanian coastlines guided by the Ukrainian Navy while employing sea drone attacks to deter the Russian fleet. According to Zhelezniak, the new arrangement could potentially undermine Ukraine’s influence in the Black Sea.
In terms of halting energy strikes, the ceasefire included suspending long-range attacks on energy infrastructure. However, notable discord arose swiftly after Tuesday’s announcement regarding the ceasefire start date. Russia alleged the ceasefire began on March 18, accusing Ukraine of striking energy targets within Russia, a claim refuted on Wednesday by Ukraine’s General Staff.
The Kremlin subsequently released a comprehensive list of infrastructure covered under the limited ceasefire, including refineries, oil and gas pipelines, and storage facilities, as well as power plants, generating and transmitting infrastructure, substations, distribution switchgear, and various types of power plant dams. As talks advance, the challenges in actualizing and monitoring this partial ceasefire continue to unfold.