Stalled Ceasefire: A Complex Web of Demands

Recent high-level ceasefire negotiations in Saudi Arabia have concluded with a series of contradictory statements, highlighting the chaotic nature of the peace process. While Ukraine believed an immediate cessation of hostilities in the Black Sea had been agreed upon, russia stipulated that the lifting of economic sanctions was a prerequisite. The United States, meanwhile, has largely reiterated President trump’s broad call for an end to the violence.

Analysts and experts suggest that the Kremlin appears to be leveraging these negotiations to gain both time and strategic advantages. The Trump administration’s approach of pursuing limited ceasefire agreements, intended to pave the way for a broader truce and eventual peace accord, is under scrutiny.critics argue that these incremental agreements have primarily served as a vehicle for Russia to extract concessions from Ukraine while capitalizing on the White house’s desire to broker peace.

Russia’s Conditions: Sanctions Relief as a Prerequisite

Moscow has stated that it will only agree to a Black Sea truce if sanctions imposed on its state agricultural bank, Rosselkhozbank, are lifted, along with other restrictions. Experts warn that if Washington accepts these conditions and pressures its European allies to follow suit, the proposed Black Sea agreement would disproportionately benefit Moscow at Kyiv‘s expense.

This demand echoes previous instances where Russia has seemingly used negotiations to advance its own interests.For example, discussions regarding the Black Sea followed a Washington-brokered agreement to suspend attacks on energy infrastructure for 30 days.While ostensibly a mutual concession, this measure primarily benefited moscow, given the critically important damage Ukrainian strikes had inflicted on Russian oil and gas facilities. Furthermore, the agreement lacked a clear enforcement mechanism, leading to mutual accusations of continued attacks.

Past Proposals Rejected: A Pattern of Obstruction?

Earlier this month, President Vladimir Putin reportedly rejected a Washington and Kyiv-negotiated 30-day ceasefire proposal.Putin’s conditions included freezing Ukrainian recruitment, military training, and weapons imports, which would have left kyiv in a particularly vulnerable position should fighting resume. This pattern of setting preconditions raises concerns about Russia’s genuine commitment to de-escalation.

It seems clear that the Russians are giving the matter long, and that is very good. The Russians are lengthening it and demand many conditions to place us in a complex scenario.
daniel Fried, former American high diplomat and a member of the Atlantic Council of Washington

Even President Trump acknowledged Russia’s tactics, stating that Moscow might be “giving long,” drawing a parallel to his own past approach in commercial negotiations where he sought to “continue in the game” without committing to a final agreement.

the Black Sea Grain Initiative: A History of Exploitation

Russia has framed the Black Sea proposal as a revival of the 2022 UN-backed agreement, which granted it some control over commercial maritime transport through the sea.While this agreement allowed Ukraine to export grain through a designated sea corridor, it also permitted Russia to inspect all commercial ships for weapons. Critics contend that the Russian government exploited this provision to paralyze Ukrainian maritime exports.

Following the collapse of the agreement in 2023, Ukraine successfully expelled the Russian Navy from the western Black Sea, establishing its own maritime corridor. This operation proved so effective that maritime grain exports returned to near pre-war levels, surpassing those achieved during the UN-backed agreement. Given this context, experts argue that Kyiv has little incentive to concede to Moscow’s demands.

Ukraine’s Perspective: Seeking Tangible Benefits

according to experts, for any Black Sea agreement to be considered balanced, it must offer a clear benefit to Kyiv, such as a commitment from Russia to cease attacks on the southern port of Odesa or on Ukrainian agricultural export facilities.The White House’s statements, however, have only alluded to the elimination of “use of force” in the Black Sea, without explicitly addressing these critical concerns.

Furthermore, the Kremlin’s conditions include the potential lifting of sanctions by the United States as a prerequisite for Russian action, a proposition that has met with strong opposition from European Union leaders. French president Emmanuel Macron questioned Trump’s concept of “peace through force,” arguing that it should not begin with the removal of sanctions before any verifiable progress has been made.

The Russians have managed to include this on the agenda, which means that the lifting of the sanctions is part of the initial negotiation process. Why are we interested in doing it? What is the reciprocal measure that we are going to obtain from the russians?
Daniel Fried, former American high diplomat and a member of the Atlantic Council of Washington

Zelensky’s Concerns: moscow’s Deceptive Tactics

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has stated that Moscow’s conditions regarding the Black sea Agreement are further evidence that the kremlin is seeking additional concessions while misleading the United States about its true intentions. Despite Trump’s threats of consequences if Russia does not pursue peace, his administration has largely accepted and echoed Putin’s statements about ending the conflict and exploring renewed cooperation.

The SWIFT Demand: A significant Concession for Moscow

The conditions imposed by Moscow on the Black Sea agreement include the demand to reconnect the Russian State Bank of Agriculture to the SWIFT international payment system. This would require the cooperation of European countries, which have been excluded from the negotiations.Alexander Kolyand, a researcher at the European Political analysis Center, argues that removing sanctions from the bank would provide a ample advantage to Moscow.

Without a doubt they want a large state bank outside the sanctions, because at the time you have a bank financially sanitized, you can do what you want. They can compensate for transactions; they can move money between countries; they can pay imports in dollars, which is always cheaper; and can receive dollars for their exports.
Alexander Kolyand, researcher at the European Political Analysis Center

Formalizing the Status Quo?

Even if Moscow, Washington, and Kyiv resolve their differing statements on the Black Sea agreement, andrey Sizov, director of Sovecon, an agricultural market analysis company, believes that the discussed ceasefire would merely formalize the existing situation. Ukraine has been successfully exporting grain through the Black Sea since late 2023, and Russia has been exporting both oil and grain, albeit with increased logistical challenges due to restrictions. Sizov views the current conversations as a formal recognition of the current state of affairs.

It’s not a step forward. From my personal perspective,it shows that the advances towards a total truce,towards a high total fire,are quite limited,if there are.
Andrey Sizov,director of Sovecon