Ceasefire on Moscow’s terms? How peace talks in Riyadh made US redraw its red lines on Ukraine
On Tuesday, another round of peace talks concluded in Saudi Arabia, where the US engaged in separate negotiations with Ukraine and Russia. This round marked the second consecutive failure for Washington. Trump was forced to make clear concessions. Notably, his administration, usually eager to exaggerate its achievements, refrained from declaring any "success" this time.
To some extent, Russia emerged as the winner of this round.
The Kremlin secured US acceptance of its version of an "energy ceasefire," which primarily imposes restrictions on Ukraine rather than on Russia. What is more, Russia refused to halt airstrikes on civilian infrastructure.
The maritime ceasefire agreement poses even greater problems.
Russia is the undisputed winner here.
Putin secured a commitment from the Trump administration to help Russia sell agricultural products and lift restrictions on Russian ships. Remarkably, the US even promised Moscow to lift sanctions imposed by Europe!
Furthermore, Russia seeks leverage over the movement of commercial ships traveling to and from Ukraine, though this matter remains unresolved.
The Riyadh talks did have two positive aspects for Ukraine. The US did not pressure Kyiv to cross its red lines. Additionally, Washington consulted with Ukraine even in areas where it had no obligation to do so.
Preconditions for failure
No breakthrough was expected from the negotiations held on 23-25 March in the Saudi capital. This was a technical round where the US, Ukraine, and Russia were supposed to agree on the mechanisms for implementing the agreements reached in last week’s phone conversations between the two pairs of leaders, Trump with Putin and Trump with Zelenskyy.
Among these agreements was a partial ceasefire, which, according to hopes in Kyiv and Washington, was supposed to pave the way for a full truce.
However, to implement any agreements, all sides must at least interpret them in the same way.
This was not the case.
European Pravda previously reported that after Trump’s negotiations with Zelenskyy and Putin, it became clear that the sides had completely different understandings of what had been discussed.
This divergence was particularly evident in the concept of a "partial ceasefire." Trump, eager to present it as a personal victory, claimed that Putin had agreed to stop strikes on energy facilities and civilian infrastructure. The White House echoed this claim, and Ukraine even compiled a list of civilian sites to be protected from attacks. However, Putin insisted that the ceasefire applied only to energy infrastructure – nothing more.
The meeting in Riyadh determined the "winner" of this dispute. The Americans ultimately accepted Russia’s version and dropped any mention of prohibiting strikes on "infrastructure facilities." Even regarding energy, the agreement now looks like a one-sided victory for Russia.
The ceasefire that’s already in effect
The negotiations in Riyadh yielded results: both Ukraine and Russia agreed to observe a "partial ceasefire" concerning strikes on energy infrastructure.
Putin confirmed this in a press release on the Kremlin's website.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced that the ceasefire took effect on the evening of 25 March, coinciding with the release of the White House press statement. However, he also clarified that, contrary to Ukraine’s expectations, the agreement applies exclusively to energy facilities: "We do not strike their energy infrastructure, they do not strike ours."
This has impacted the exchange of airstrikes between Russia and Ukraine, but only unilaterally. Last night, Ukraine refrained from launching long-range drone strikes on Russian territory. Until now, Ukraine had frequently targeted Russian oil refineries and storage facilities, but these are now off-limits.
Meanwhile, Russia’s Iranian-made Shahed attack drones continued striking Ukraine overnight, just as they had every night before. Putin justified this by claiming that Russia was attacking anything but energy infrastructure. Under the terms agreed upon in Riyadh, deliberate attacks on hospitals, residential buildings, or schools, like those seen in recent days, are not considered violations of the American-brokered deal.
Another unpleasant surprise was the very limited list of "protected" targets published by the Kremlin. The list includes only five categories:
- Oil refineries.
- Oil and gas pipelines and storage facilities, including pumping stations.
- Electricity generation and transmission infrastructure, including power plants, substations, transformers and distribution facilities.
- Nuclear power plants.
- Hydroelectric dams.
This was not merely a unilateral statement from Russia. According to the Kremlin, it is a "list agreed upon by both the Russian and American sides." A full day has passed since its publication, and there have been no objections or denials from Washington.
Crucially, Ukraine’s gas production facilities, which have been heavily targeted by Russian missile strikes in recent months, are absent from this list. Attacks on facilities in eastern Ukraine have had a severe impact, with some estimates suggesting that Ukraine has lost around 40% of its gas extraction capacity, forcing it to import gas this year.
The Ukrainian government insists that it coordinated different parameters for the "energy ceasefire" with the US.
"Ukraine submitted and agreed upon a classification of all energy infrastructure facilities as part of the ceasefire agreement. This includes the electricity sector, oil and gas industry, nuclear and coal industries and the manufacturing of energy machinery," the Ministry of Energy stated in response to a request from European Pravda.
However, the reality is that Russia considers its restrictions on strikes to be much narrower and insists that the US has accepted this narrower scope. There is no doubt that the Kremlin deliberately created this ambiguity.
The chaos of agreements
The United States, in its "peace negotiations" with Ukraine and Russia, is following an approach where the Americans, as mediators, make separate agreements with both the Ukrainian and Russian sides.
This approach is neither new in international relations nor in the context of Ukraine and Russia’s agreements, which have historically avoided direct negotiations without intermediaries.
However, there is a problem that questions the viability of the agreements reached in Riyadh.
Such complex deals are typically made when a mediator achieves a common understanding with both sides, and they sign identical agreements. However, the new American administration does not seem concerned with this rule. The Riyadh negotiations failed to find a common denominator. There were no joint statements; each side made its own declaration, and they differed in significant details.
One of the key rules of international negotiations is "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed," and this is the reality for these talks.
However, even these uncoordinated statements are worth attention. It’s important to understand where there is preliminary agreement and where the sides have not yet reached a consensus.
One of the problematic areas was the idea of easing sanctions against Russia.
In the statement regarding negotiations with the Russian delegation, the Americans made a commitment: "The United States will help restore Russia’s access to the world market for agricultural and fertiliser exports." These exports are not directly affected by sanctions but have been complicated due to high maritime insurance costs and restrictions on financial transactions with Russia.
But this provoked resistance from Ukraine.
Kyiv failed to convince Washington, possibly because Trump himself is inclined to ease pressure on Russia to restore business with Putin's regime.
However, the Ukrainian objections were enough to prevent the publication of a joint Russian-American statement on this matter. The document’s status was downgraded to a unilateral one.
No restrictions for Russia, but restrictions for Ukraine
The Kremlin launched an offensive and issued an ultimatum to Trump: a list of sanction relaxations that Russia would agree to, in exchange for further progress in the negotiations. Here is the list:
- The removal of sanctions imposed on Rosselkhozbank (Russian Agricultural Bank) and other financial institutions involved in international food and fertiliser trade, including their reconnection to SWIFT.
- The removal of restrictions imposed on trade finance operations.
- The removal of sanctions imposed on companies producing and exporting food and fertilisers.
- The removal of restrictions banning insurance companies from working with food cargoes and fertilisers.
- The removal of restrictions on servicing ships in ports and sanctions against ships flying the flag of Russia, if they are involved in that trade.
- The removal of restrictions on supplies to the Russian Federation of agricultural machinery and other goods used in the production of food and fertilisers.
The lifting of sanctions on Russia without justification creates a dangerous precedent per se. But this list is particularly dangerous, especially due to the vagueness of its demands. Among those "involved in trade," it is certain that systemic Russian banks, such as Sberbank, will be included. Point 2 of the ultimatum is worded in such a way that it could be scaled to include a large number of financial restrictions against Russia.
But for the US, this is not a barrier. Donald Trump has confirmed the willingness to consider Russia's ultimatum: "There are about five or six conditions. We are looking at all of them," the president said.
But these demands become especially cynical when considering who is expected to fulfil them.
In essence, the Kremlin is demanding that the US force Europe to lift sanctions on Russia.
In particular, the SWIFT system, which is headquartered in Belgium, is not under American control. Who is supposed to convince Europeans to ease sanctions against Russia? There are reasons to believe that the US sees Ukraine in this role, and that Ukraine has agreed to this. Specifically, this could be the meaning behind the cryptic phrase in Ukraine's statement following the negotiations, where they say they "welcome the good offices of third countries with a view toward supporting the implementation of … agreements."
What has Russia committed to in exchange for the lifting of sanctions?
In response, the Kremlin promised to introduce a maritime ceasefire condition on the simultaneous restoration of the so-called Black Sea Grain Initiative. This is the scheme for allowing Ukrainian trade vessels, which was in place in 2022. The scheme involves mandatory inspections of vessels heading to Ukraine in the Bosporus Straits, allegedly to ensure they are not carrying military cargo.
In practice, in 2022, Russia used this mechanism to slow maritime traffic and make Ukrainian ports uncompetitive. The corridor’s operation ceased in 2023. Now, Ukraine no longer needs the "grain corridor" as shipping has resumed after Ukrainian sea drones destroyed part of the Russian military fleet and forced the remainder to retreat to the eastern part of the Black Sea.
If the old scheme is revived at Russia's demand, Russian cargoes would pass through the Bosporus without restrictions or inspections, while ships heading to Ukrainian ports would be restricted.
As a result, Kyiv remains sceptical about this idea.
"We remember how Russia blocked the corridor, conducted lengthy inspections, and intentionally created queues. Can we say it will work simply now? No. And it is still too early to say it will work," President Zelenskyy commented on the idea.
The sides also have differing views on what would be included in the "maritime ceasefire" if it is implemented. In particular, there remains a grey area regarding strikes on ports or port infrastructure. "What can you transport [from a seaport] if a missile hits a silo?" President Zelenskyy asked rhetorically.
Ukrainian Defence Minister Rustem Umierov warned: "All movement by Russia of its military vessels outside the Eastern part of the Black Sea will constitute violation of the spirit of this agreement, will be regarded as violation of the commitment to ensure the safety of shipping in the Black Sea and threat to the national security of Ukraine. In this case Ukraine will have every right to exercise the right to self-defence."
In light of all this, it is hard to speak of truly meaningful results from the Riyadh negotiations at this time. It can be stated that the US did not agree to some of Russia's dangerous proposals. We don’t know whether this was a conscious policy or if Russia outwitted the US.
But this does not seem like the path to long-lasting, sustainable peace.
Sergiy Sydorenko,
Editor, European Pravda