The long, slow road to the end of the fire of Russia-Ukraine

After three days of conversations in Saudi Arabia, finally some progress.

Two separate texts outline agreements between the US and Russia and the US and Ukraine.

There were some differences, but it was a lot. All countries have agreed to “provide safe navigation, to eliminate the use of force and to prevent the use of merchant ships for military purposes in the Black Sea.”

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

President Zelenski regrets that there is no explicit ban on attacks on civil infrastructure, but it sounded widely satisfactory.

He told reporters that Ukraine will immediately apply the Black Sea and the energy ceases.

He also nods in his agenda with the United States, saying that this will “remain committed to helping to achieve an exchange of prisoners of war, to release civil detainees, and to return forcibly transferred Ukrainian children.”

But then came a third document issued by the Kremlin to blur the waters.

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

It says that the termination of the Black Sea fire will only come into force when the sanctions are canceled by Russian banks, insurers, companies, ports and ships that would allow him to export more goods for agriculture and fertilizer.

In other words, they saw this transaction not only as a revival of the old Black Sea grain initiative, from which they withdrew in 2023, but also an opportunity to return a significant number of economic sanctions.

However, it can take some time and thus slow down any marine ceasefire.

In addition, it may not be entirely in the US gift to make all the changes that Russia requested.

For example, any return to the SWIFT financial communication system will require EU approval.

The Kremlin also said that a 30-day break for energy strikes will be a date to start on March 18 and can be stopped if one party breaks the deal.

In other words, what is agreed is a fragile step towards some reduction of fighting in Ukraine, but without a guarantee of success against the background of an atmosphere of mutual distrust.

Even if today’s agreement survives, this is still far from the overall cessation of fire across the country, which initially wants the United States.

It is often said that termination is processes, not events. And this is true as always about this agreement.

The important thing is not to declare any cessation of fire, but if and how it is applied. In other words, the proof of pudding will be in eating.

Will both parties make this deal work and then deal with it? Because in answering these questions we will learn a lot about what both sides really want.

Do they want to stop fire into a long -term peace? Or do they just want to trade as they press their home the advantage of the battlefield?