March 25, 2025

Institute for the Study of War: Ukraine, Russia agree on temporary cease-fire in Black Sea, but ambiguities cloud the picture

Institute for the Study of War

US, Ukrainian, and Russian officials reached some agreements for temporary ceasefires on strikes against energy infrastructure and in the Black Sea. The details of these ceasefires remain unclear and evaluating the ceasefires’ specifics in the absence of officially published joint texts of the agreements signed by Russia and Ukraine remains difficult. The White House issued one readout about the outcomes of the US-Russian talks in Saudi Arabia from March 24 and another about the US-Ukrainian talks from March 25.[1] The Kremlin and Ukrainian Defense Minister Rustem Umerov each issued separate statements for Russia and Ukraine.[2] The American, Russian, and Ukrainian statements share some commonalities but differ from each other significantly in other regards. The US readouts, the Kremlin readout, and Umerov commonly stated that the United States, Ukraine, and Russia “agreed to develop measures for implementing” US President Donald Trump’s, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s, and Russian President Vladimir Putin’s “agreement to ban strikes against energy facilities of Russia and Ukraine.”[3] Zelensky stated that Ukraine also gave the United States a list of “strategic infrastructure objects” that Ukraine would like protected under a strikes ceasefire.[4] This list is not explicitly mentioned in the US or Russian readouts. The Kremlin later issued a list of Russian and Ukrainian facilities that Russian and American delegations agreed fall under the temporary ceasefire on strikes on the energy system.[5] The Kremlin stated that the list includes oil refineries; oil and gas pipelines and storage facilities, including pumping stations; electricity generation and transmission infrastructure, including power plants, substations, transformers, and distributors; nuclear power plants; and hydroelectric dams. It is unclear if the Russian list of objects is the same list of “strategic infrastructure objects” that Zelensky mentioned. The Kremlin stated that the temporary ceasefire is valid for 30 days starting from March 18, 2025, meaning that the ceasefire will by default expire on April 17, 2025, unless Russia and Ukraine mutually agree to renew it. The Kremlin stated that Russia and Ukraine have the right to consider themselves free from the obligations of the agreement if one of the parties violates the agreement. The mechanisms to monitor and address allegations of violations remain unclear. The Kremlin’s list notably only includes energy infrastructure facilities, and it remains unclear whether discussions regarding Zelensky’s list of other non-energy facilities that he wants protected under the ceasefire are still ongoing or whether the Kremlin has rejected Zelensky’s proposal. Umerov also stated that Ukraine is ready to “ready to organize a separate meeting at the technical level to begin work on implementation mechanisms” for the strikes and Black Sea ceasefires and that “at this point, all parties are going to brief the relevant leadership, and we will announce the dates and times soon.”[6] The Kremlin’s and Umerov’s statements suggest that Russia and Ukraine may not yet be in agreement about whether the ceasefire has gone into effect or not as of March 25.

The US readouts of its bilateral meetings in Saudi Arabia and Umerov noted that the United States, Ukraine, and Russia “agreed to ensure safe navigation, eliminate the use of force, and prevent the use of commercial vessels for military purposes in the Black Sea.”[7] The Kremlin readout of the US-Russian talks similarly stated that the United States and Russia agreed to such measures as part of a “Black Sea Initiative,” but added that there need to be “appropriate control measures through inspection of such vessels.”[8] Umerov uniquely added that all Russian military vessels movement “outside of [the] eastern part of the Black Sea” will constitute a violation of the spirit of this agreement and that Ukraine will regard such movement as a violation of the commitment to ensure the safe navigation of the Black Sea and a threat Ukraine’s national security.[9] Umerov stated that Ukraine will be able to exercise its right to self-defense in the event of such violations.

All readouts of the March 23 to 25 bilateral meetings noted that the parties “welcome the good offices of third countries with a view toward supporting the implementation of the energy and maritime agreements” and that all parties “will continue working toward achieving a durable and lasting peace.”[10] (Turkey notably helped facilitate the July 2022 grain deal by inspecting commercial vessels transporting foodstuffs in the Black Sea.)[11] The White House and Umerov stated that the United States and Ukraine “agreed that the United States remains committed to helping achieve prisoners of war (POWs) exchanges, the release of civilian detainees, and the return of forcibly transferred Ukrainian children.”[12]

Putin continues to reject Trump’s and Zelensky’s proposed temporary frontline ceasefire, despite agreeing to some form of ceasefire for strikes on energy infrastructure and in the Black Sea. Putin’s persistent stalling and intransigence are inhibiting Trump’s efforts to secure a lasting and stable peace settlement. The US readouts for both its meetings with Russian and Ukrainian delegations noted that Trump’s “imperative that the killing on both sides” of the war must stop, “as the necessary step toward achieving an enduring peace settlement” — likely in reference to the unconditional 30-day general ceasefire on the frontline that Trump and Zelensky have already agreed upon, but that Putin rejected on March 18.[13]

The Kremlin stated that it will not implement the agreed ceasefire in the Black Sea until the United States lifts sanctions on Russian state-owned agricultural bank Rosselkhozbank and other unspecified financial organizations involved in international food and fertilizer trade.[14] The Kremlin stated that unspecified actors — presumably the United States — must also reconnect Rosselkhozbank and other unspecified financial organizations to SWIFT and lift restrictions on trade finance transactions. Additionally, they must lift sanctions restricting companies producing and exporting food and fertilizers and their insurance companies, lift restrictions on servicing ships in ports and sanctions against ships operating under the Russian flag involved in trading food and fertilizer products, and lift restrictions on supplying agricultural machinery and other tools used in food and fertilizer production to Russia. The United States did not provide Russia such demanded sanctions relief when Ukraine and Russia agreed to the grain deal in July 2022.[15] The White House and Kremlin readouts of the US-Russian meetings noted that the “United States will help restore Russia’s access to the world market for agricultural and fertilizer exports, lower maritime insurance costs, and enhance access to ports and payment systems for such transactions,” but the US readout notably did not include explicit language suggesting that Russia‘s acceptance and adherence to the Black Sea ceasefire would be conditional on preliminary US sanctions relief.[16] The United States will likely require European Union (EU) cooperation in order to lift some sanctions and restrictions on Russian agricultural, financial, and trade entities to reconnect Russia to international agricultural and fertilizer markets.[17] US President Donald Trump responded to a question about the United States lifting some sanctions on Russia before Russia implements measures in the Black Sea and stated that the US is considering lifting some sanctions against Russia.[18] Establishing the initial grain deal in July 2022 did not require any sanctions relief, and reinstating the grain deal likely similarly does not require preliminary sanctions relief.[19] Establishing a temporary ceasefire in the Black Sea does not require preliminary sanctions relief.

The Kremlin’s official statements are vague, stipulate requirements for the ceasefire that neither the United States nor Ukrainian official statements mention, and leave room for disagreement among the parties that would be involved in interpreting the agreements, lifting sanctions, and monitoring potential violations. The official Kremlin statement is vague on the specific sanctions and restrictions the Kremlin is demanding that the West preliminarily lift and the specific financial organizations and companies involved. The Kremlin statement also does not specify the actors that will interpret the parameters of these restrictions, monitor lifting these restrictions, and verify all parties’ compliance. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky stated that Ukraine, Russia, and the United States issued separate statements because the US-Ukrainian meetings did not discuss US-Russian efforts to assist restoring Russian access to agricultural and trade markets.[20]

Key Takeaways:

  • US, Ukrainian, and Russian officials reached some agreements for temporary ceasefires on strikes against energy infrastructure and in the Black Sea. The details of these ceasefires remain unclear and evaluating the ceasefires’ specifics in the absence of officially published joint texts of the agreements signed by Russia and Ukraine remains difficult.
  • The Kremlin’s and Umerov’s statements suggest that Russia and Ukraine may not yet be in agreement about whether the ceasefire has gone into effect or not as of March 25.
  • Putin continues to reject Trump’s and Zelensky’s proposed temporary frontline ceasefire, despite agreeing to some form of ceasefire for strikes on energy infrastructure and in the Black Sea. Putin’s persistent stalling and intransigence are inhibiting Trump’s efforts to secure a lasting and stable peace settlement.
  • The Kremlin stated that it will not implement the agreed ceasefire in the Black Sea until the United States lifts sanctions on Russian state-owned agricultural bank Rosselkhozbank and other unspecified financial organizations involved in international food and fertilizer trade.
  • Russian forces recently advanced in the Kursk-Sumy Oblast border area, near Toretsk, and in western Zaporizhia Oblast.
  • The Russian military continues to deny rotations to soldiers who have been fighting in the war in Ukraine for years.
Share the Post:

Wilson Center

Forced displacement represents one of the most pressing humanitarian issues of our time. Individuals and families, torn from the fabric of their communities, find themselves navigating a world of uncertainty, often without basic necessities or a clear path to safety. There are currently some 110 million forced displaced, and this number is growing by 10 million each year!

At the heart of this crisis are the political triggers. Armed conflicts, ethnic or religious persecutions, and systemic human rights abuses force millions to flee their homes in terror. Many are displaced within their own national boundaries, while others seek asylum abroad. If these factors change as a result of political shifts at home or the pressures from abroad, they can return to their homes. Forced displacement is thus different from environmentally driven displacement, as victims of climate change may never be able to return to their homes.

The ramifications of any sort of displacement are profound, not just for those directly affected, but also for host communities and countries. Overburdened infrastructures, socio-economic strains, and cultural tensions can arise, necessitating comprehensive strategies to foster harmony and integration. Yet the root causes of forced displacement can be remedied with a concerted focus by local players and international diplomacy.

Organizations like Refugees International play a crucial role in this arena, advocating for the rights and needs of the displaced, conducting on-the-ground assessments, and influencing policymakers to take informed actions. Their relentless work underscores the gravity of the situation and the urgency ofinternational cooperation. But they, too, are overwhelmed by the rapid expansion of the crisis.

International Humanitarian Law (IHL), with its core principles centered on the protection of civilians during conflicts, plays a pivotal role in this discourse. Yet, despite clear legal frameworks, compliance remains
inconsistent. This initiative emphasizes the importance of upholding and reinforcing these international standards.

It’s not just about recognizing the problem; it’s about active engagement. We urge governments, organizations, and individuals to prioritize the rights and needs of the forced displaced. Through collective efforts, informed policies, and sustained advocacy, we can shift the narrative from passive acknowledgment to proactive intervention.