“Silence at Sea” as a basis for a real truce: political scientists’ assessment
26 March 13:46
ANALYSIS
During yesterday’s talks in Riyadh, the US delegation agreed with representatives of Ukraine and Russia to prevent attacks on commercial vessels in the Black Sea.
This is stated in the White House’s statement following the meetings.
“The United States and Ukraine have agreed to ensure the safety of navigation, eliminate the use of force, and prevent the use of commercial vessels for military purposes in the Black Sea,”
– the statement said.
The United States reached a similar agreement during negotiations with the Russians.
Ukraine’s Defense Minister Rustem Umerov emphasized that Russia’s movement of its warships beyond the eastern part of the Black Sea would be considered a violation of the spirit of this agreement and would be seen as a violation of its obligations to ensure freedom of navigation in the Black Sea and a threat to Ukraine’s national security.
“In this case, Ukraine will have every right to exercise its right to self-defense,”
– he said.
Other agreements
In addition, the US delegation agreed with Ukraine and Russia separately to develop measures to mutually stop attacks on energy facilities in Russia and Ukraine.
The White House emphasized that the United States remains committed to facilitating the exchange of prisoners of war, the release of civilian prisoners, and the return of forcibly displaced Ukrainian children.
The United States also stated that it would help restore Russia’s access to the global market for agricultural and fertilizer exports, reduce marine insurance costs, and expand access to ports and payment systems for such transactions.
So, is the cessation of hostilities at sea a real deal or is it just another attempt to show the appearance of a result in the absence of progress in the negotiations? And if something like this is implemented in practice, how beneficial is it for Ukraine and what exactly does it give us? "Komersant Ukrainian" asked domestic experts about this.
Читайте нас у Telegram: головні новини коротко
“There is no silence at sea”
Political analyst Volodymyr Fesenko emphasized that the silence at sea is more beneficial to Russia than to Ukraine. They don’t even hide the fact that they need silence not even for the sake of the Black Sea grain initiative, but to avoid strikes on Crimea and the Crimean bridge. But, in fact, no agreements were reached and the Black Sea did not become a zone of silence in reality.
“There is no silence, not yet. Rather, there is a half-hearted silence – at least for the last six months. How long have you seen news of active hostilities in the Black Sea? Not for a long time. Because there hasn’t been any since last fall. Yes, there have been attacks on Crimea, and there has been shelling of Odesa, but there hasn’t been any active fighting at sea for a long time. So the question of a ceasefire at sea is rather conditional,”
– said the expert in an exclusive comment
He emphasized that the main problem is attacks on port infrastructure, not active hostilities at sea. Ports are what both sides would like to protect in the current situation.
“The main risks, the main problems when talking about a ceasefire at sea, the resumption of the so-called Black Sea Initiative, are precisely the strikes on port infrastructure, not the hostilities at sea. And [there are] no agreements on this yet,”
– insists the political scientist.
Not an agreement, but a Russian ultimatum
Fesenko also noted that the agreements in Riyadh are not legally binding:
“When the grain agreement, the so-called Black Sea Initiative, was signed, there was a document. It was signed separately by Russia and Ukraine. Turkey and the UN signed it. And now what was signed? Nothing has been signed. That’s why there is no silence, no documents, no agreements. There are, at best, what can be called semi-formal agreements that are not recorded in any document.”
Moreover, the meeting resulted in the first ultimatum from Russia to the Trump administration, the expert says. After all, the Russians told the Americans that there would be silence at sea only if the United States fulfills the requirements for lifting sanctions in the agricultural sector.
“And this is the problem. If the Americans agree to this, which is quite likely, then a precedent will be set. Because Russia can then say: first, the lifting of sanctions, and then a ceasefire – in the air, on land, anywhere. And this will be a very negative logic that can destroy both the negotiation process and the implementation of any agreements, including the ceasefire,”
– emphasizes the political scientist.
As for a possible ceasefire, the expert recommends that Ukraine tie the ceasefire at sea to the cessation of hostilities in the air. After all, air strikes are the most significant problem for Ukraine.
“For us, the key issue, and this could be a real breakthrough, is to agree on a ceasefire in the air. Because this is the number one problem for us. And then this will also apply to strikes on port infrastructure, including. If there are no air strikes, then we will all feel that, let’s say, there is less war,”
– summarized Volodymyr Fesenko.
Silence at sea as a starting point for a truce
In turn, political scientist Stanislav Zhelikhovsky notes that although there are still very few details, it is still noticeable that there are attempts to ensure the security of the Black Sea, in particular for merchant ships and port infrastructure. He suggests that these agreements could become the basis for a temporary truce.
“If this issue is really implemented, and Russia does not violate the agreements that are currently being discussed, then I think this could become the basis for a comprehensive truce. It will be temporary for now, but it will be a preparation for a long-term ceasefire. And then we can move on,”
– commented the expert exclusively for
At the same time, he also noted that Russia is making maximum demands and demanding the lifting of sanctions in exchange for a ceasefire at sea. According to the political scientist, this situation will show how decisive the Trump team will be and whether it will be able to achieve silence at sea without giving in to all of Russia’s demands
“I think Ukraine, the free world and our partners need to take a tougher stance,”
– stanislav Zhelikhovsky summarized.
Thus, the experts’ opinions on the real consequences and prospects of yesterday’s agreements differ somewhat. However, they certainly agree that Russia has made the highest possible demands to the United States in an ultimatum, and the reaction to these demands will show what Ukraine can expect from the United States in the future and what its role in the negotiations will be.
Читайте нас у Telegram: головні новини коротко
