Black Sea ceasefire is a potential win for Putin
A ceasefire in the Black Sea gives Russia’s embattled naval forces space to breathe, and allows Putin to continue changing facts on the ground in Kursk and Ukraine.
President Trump is still striving for his next “deal of the century”, and events may be turning in his favour. In the latest chapter of the Russia-Ukraine ceasefire saga, the United States announced a potential breakthrough this afternoon. Following the most recent round of US-brokered negotiations in Saudi Arabia, the White House released two separate statements declaring that Ukraine and Russia have both agreed in principle to implement a maritime ceasefire in the Black Sea.
The statements said that all three parties – Russia, Ukraine, and the United States – “have agreed to ensure safe navigation, eliminate the use of force, and prevent the use of commercial vessels for military purposes in the Black Sea.”
The troika also agreed “to develop measures” for the implementation of an “agreement to ban strikes against energy facilities of Russia and Ukraine”. This referred to commitments made by the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, after a long phone call with his American counterpart last week.
So far, the agreements sound promising. President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine described the deals as a step in the right direction: “It is too early to say that it will work, but these were the right meetings, the right decisions, the right steps.”
Yet no sooner had the ceasefire agreements been proclaimed than doubts and controversies surrounding them began to emerge.
First, the two separate statements represent two separate sets of negotiations – one between the US and Russia, and another between the US and Ukraine. They are a ceasefire only in principle for the simple fact that the two parties required to implement it – Russia and Ukraine – have not yet sat down with one another and consented to the same document. This is not yet the comprehensive ceasefire that the Trump administration has been striving for.
Second, the two warring parties cannot agree on precisely when the ceasefire should come into force. Soon after the White House statements were released, President Zelensky stated that the ceasefire agreements would be “effective immediately”.
Yet the Ukrainian leader’s remarks were contradicted by a statement from the Kremlin. This claimed that the terms of the agreement regarding safe navigation in the Black Sea would only come into force after “the lifting of sanctions” on the state-owned Russian Agricultural Bank, Rosselkhozbank, as well as other “financial institutions involved in international trade of food”. Moscow also called for these institutions to be reconnected to the SWIFT international payments system from which they were ejected in May 2022.
It is clear that Russian demands go beyond the relief measures envisaged by today’s agreement with Washington, which stated simply: “The United States will help restore Russia’s access to the world market for agricultural fertilizer exports, lower maritime insurance costs, and enhance access to ports and payments systems for such transactions.”
By applying more expansive conditions to the agreement, pessimists will argue that Putin is trying to put himself in a win-win scenario: either he succeeds in pressing his demands, and he undermines the sanctions packages agreed between European countries and Washington. Or he fails, but in doing so provides himself with a pretext for not complying with the ceasefire.
On the matter of whether the Kremlin is serious about implementing any deal, Ukraine and her allies will point to the meagre results of last week’s phone call between Trump and Putin. Last Wednesday, the White House announced, to much fanfare, that it had secured Russian agreement to halt all strikes on Ukrainian energy and infrastructure for a period of thirty days. The agreement was supposed to be implemented immediately. Yet within hours of the announcement, Russia launched a large overnight drone and missile strike on Ukraine that hit civilian infrastructure, including an electricity system in Ukraine’s central Dnipropetrovsk region.
Moscow subsequently played on the confusion surrounding whether the 30-day halt referred to attacks on energy and infrastructure (the US understanding) or merely energy infrastructure (the Russian understanding).
Zelensky was quick to argue that this showed his Russian adversaries’ lack of commitment to peace talks.
This gets to the heart of the matter. After more than three years of brutal warfare, any agreement could still run aground because of the fundamental hostility that exists between the Russians and Ukrainians. In an environment in which both parties’ distrust for one another is so great, the Black Sea ceasefire could easily be derailed. It would only take one side to accuse the other of breaking the spirit of the agreement – perhaps by using commercial vessels for military purposes, or by deploying their naval forces in a threatening manner – for the whole arrangement to unravel.
Yet if the deal does go ahead, Putin could be the ultimate winner. Russia’s navy has taken a battering in the Black Sea during the conflict. The Ukrainians have notched up a series of successful strikes against Russian oil facilities and vessels, most notably the Russian navy’s flagship, the Moskva. If Putin can secure a ceasefire here, it would buy some much-needed breathing space for his embattled maritime forces. Crucially, he might also be able to secure some sanctions relief that would further divide the NATO alliance and allow him to acquire the hard currency that he needs to continue propping up Russia’s war economy, which is in danger of overheating.
Ultimately, a ceasefire in the Black Sea would leave the Russian president free to continue changing facts on the ground in Kursk and the Donbas, manoeuvring to put himself in the best possible position for any negotiations on a comprehensive ceasefire and peace deal.
ON REACTION TODAY
Adam Boulton
Trump and the perilous politics of presidential portraits
ALSO KNOW
Trump team quizzed on Signal blunder - The Trump administration is in damage-control mode. Yesterday, it was revealed that top national security officials had accidentally leaked highly classified material to Jeffrey Goldberg, editor of The Atlantic magazine, via the Signal messaging app. Today, Tulsi Gabbard, the US Director of National Intelligence, and John Ratcliffe, the Director of the CIA, were summoned to the Senate Intelligence Committee for a grilling. Both denied that any classified information had been shared on the Signal app, prompting the leading Democrat on the committee, Mark Warner, to call for their resignation. President Trump is still standing by Mike Waltz, his national security adviser, telling NBC that Waltz “has learned a lesson”. The president argued that the Signal blunder was “the only glitch in two months, and it turned out not to be a serious one”.
HSBC chair declares traditional globalisation over - Sir Mark Tucker, chairman of HSBC, stated that traditional globalisation may have ended due to escalating trade and geopolitical tensions. Speaking at the Global Investment Summit in Hong Kong, he emphasised the emergence of stronger regional economic ties and trade blocs, such as the expanded BRICS group. Tucker highlighted the uncertainty these tensions create, posing significant risks to global growth, while also noting new opportunities within these evolving economic alliances.
U.S. stock market surges amid economic uncertainty - Wall Street experienced a significant rally, driven by hopes that the White House might delay imposing new tariffs and an unexpectedly strong business survey from S&P Global. Despite this optimism, U.S. manufacturing has slipped into contraction, and concerns about a potential recession persist. President Trump confirmed impending automotive tariffs and announced a 25% tariff on countries purchasing Venezuelan oil. Investors are closely monitoring these developments and awaiting further economic indicators to assess the overall outlook.
Watchdog says that ticket pricing may have misled fans - The UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has accused Ticketmaster of potentially misleading consumers during sales for Oasis's reunion tour. Concerns include the use of "platinum" labels on tickets without added benefits and dynamic pricing that inflated costs. The CMA is consulting with Ticketmaster to enhance transparency and ensure compliance with consumer protection laws.
FIVE THINGS
The AI race shows no country can stay in its lane. Ethan Zuckerman in Prospect.
Polarisation: poor countries disagree over the economy, richer countries on social issues - new findings. Francesco Rigoli in The Conversation.
What Team Trump’s group chat error really revealed. Freddy Gray in The Spectator.
Jordan’s looming crisis. The war in Gaza has become an existential risk to the Kingdom. Curtis R. Ryan in Foreign Affairs.
Trade War explodes across world at pace not seen in decades. Jason Douglas and Tom Fairless in The Wall Street Journal.
