The long and slow road to a high Russia-Ukraine fire

After three days of conversations in Saudi Arabia, he finally progresses.

Two separate texts that describe the agreements between the United States and Russia, and the United States and Ukraine.

There were some differences, but much was the same. All parties agreed to “guarantee safe navigation, eliminate the use of force and avoid the use of commercial vessels for military purposes in the Black Sea.”

They also agreed to “develop measures to implement … the agreement to prohibit strikes against the energy facilities of Russia and Ukraine.”

President Zelensky regretted that there was no explicit prohibition of attacks against civil infrastructure, but sounded widely happy.

He told journalists that Ukraine would implement the cessation of energy from the Black Sea and energy immediately.

He also received a wink to his agenda with the United States saying that “he would continue to help achieve the exchange of prisoners of war, the release of civil detainees and the return of Ukrainian children transferred by force.”

But then a third document arrived, issued by the Kremlin, which clouded the waters.

He imposed conditions that did not appear in the original agreement between the United States and Russia.

He said that the high black sea fire would enter into force only when sanctions were raised in banks, insurers, companies, ports and Russian ships that would allow him to export more agricultural and fertilizer assets.

In other words, they saw this agreement not only as a resurgence of the former Black Sea Grain initiative that they withdrew in 2023, but also an opportunity to reverse a significant number of economic sanctions.

However, doing this can take some time and, therefore, delay any tall sea fire.

Nor can it be completely in the United States gift to make all the changes that Russia requested.

For example, any return to the SWIFT financial messaging system would require EU approval.

The Kremlin also said that the 30 -day pause in energy strikes would be delayed to begin on March 18 and could be suspended if one side violated the agreement.

In other words, what has been agreed is a fragile step towards a certain decrease in struggle in Ukraine, but without guarantee of success amid an atmosphere of mutual distrust.

Even if today’s agreement was to survive, it is still a long way from the high fire throughout the country that the United States originally wanted.

It is often said that ceasefires are processes, not events. And that is as true as always for this agreement.

What matters is not the announcement of any fire, but if it is implemented and how it is implemented. In other words, the Buddine test will be in food.

Will both parties make this treatment work and then will live up to it? Because in the answer to those questions we will learn a lot about what both parties really want.

Do you want a fire to become a long -term peace? Or do they just want to trade while they press their advantage on the battlefield?