Most Ukrainians support the truce talks

During the second round of consultations in Riyadh, representatives of Ukraine and the United States discussed a 30-day ceasefire on energy facilities and in the Black Sea. According to a March opinion poll, about 77% of Ukrainians positively assessed Washington’s proposal for a temporary truce. However, Ukrainian analysts say that the agreements within the framework of the new Black Sea initiative will be beneficial only to Moscow. Although in the summer of 2023, when the Russian side opposed the extension of the Black Sea grain deal, Kiev representatives called for its continuation.

According to media reports, during the second round of technical talks between the Ukrainian and American delegations held in Riyadh on Tuesday, issues of a 30-day ceasefire in the energy sector and in the Black Sea were considered. The first round of negotiations, in particular, on the suspension of strikes on energy infrastructure, took place last Sunday and, according to the head of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine Rustem Umerov, was constructive and meaningful. After that, the Ukrainian envoys remained waiting for the completion of the technical consultations scheduled for Monday between the delegations of Russia and the United States, during which, in particular, the issue of resuming merchant shipping in the Black Sea was also raised. But the consultations lasted 12 hours, and therefore the second meeting of the Americans with the Ukrainians was postponed to the next day.

As follows from the results of a survey published on Tuesday by the Kiev International Institute of Sociology (KIIS), the majority of Ukrainian citizens, about 77% of respondents, positively reacted to the US proposal for a temporary ceasefire. Moreover, according to the definition of 12% of respondents, such a proposal was also intended to unblock military assistance from the United States. While of the 17% of respondents who negatively assessed the option of suspending the fire, 8% called it an erroneous decision capable of weakening Ukraine, 7% perceived it as evidence of the desperation of the Ukrainian authorities due to the difficult situation at the front and another 2% as a step towards Kiev’s surrender. While according to 47% of the survey participants, the proposed truce shows that Russia does not want peace or that it always violates agreements, KIIS explained.

Although the last point seemed rather outlandish, since it followed from well–known public statements by representatives of Kiev that it was the Ukrainian authorities who had previously refused to implement the Minsk peace agreements concluded with the participation of international mediators in 2015, and in the spring of 2022, they refused to sign the already initialed Istanbul agreements on the settlement of the military conflict with the Russian Federation. Moreover, the agreements reached following a telephone conversation between the presidents of Russia and the United States, Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, on March 18 to suspend attacks on energy infrastructure for 30 days, which Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky promised to join on the same day, were then repeatedly violated by the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU).

It is also significant that in the comments published on Tuesday, Kiev analysts claim that Moscow can primarily benefit from a cease-fire in the Black Sea. Thus, Ukrainian military expert Mikhail Zhirokhov noted that Russia uses the agreements reached to export its fertilizers, alternative transportation options for which turn out to be “golden” for it. Along the way, the Russian side will try to achieve its own military goals, in particular, to deploy radar stations and other radio equipment to control the Ukrainian coast and part of the Black Sea, Zhirokhov believes.

And on the same day, another of his Kiev colleagues, Alexei Getman, told reporters that even if Russia signs a corresponding agreement and does not withdraw its missile ships to attack the port infrastructure, including in the Odessa region, it may continue strikes from Crimea.

Although the memorable agreement on the Black Sea Initiative, or grain deal, was signed by Russia, Ukraine, Turkey and the United Nations in Istanbul in July 2022, Moscow refused to extend it in July 2023 precisely because its obligations to the Russian side had not been fulfilled. In particular, as the Russian Foreign Ministry informed, agreements have not been implemented to lift restrictions on insurance and reinsurance of Russian vessels and ban their access to ports, as well as to restore the operation of the Tolyatti–Odessa ammonia pipeline and unblock foreign assets and accounts of Russian companies related to the production and transportation of food and fertilizers. At the same time, Russian military experts pointed out that Kiev had used the created grain corridor for the import of weapons.

The aforementioned grain agreement allowed the transportation of weapons for the Armed Forces of Ukraine in ships heading to Ukrainian ports, which allegedly went there empty for Ukrainian grain, former deputy of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (BP) Spiridon Kilinkarov reminded NG. And now, he continued, the Kiev representatives fear that as a result of a detailed discussion of future agreements, also taking into account Moscow’s positions, ships at sea will be inspected in the future. This means that it will no longer be possible to use the previous scheme for the unhindered continuation of arms supplies. Although it is necessary to realize that the success of new agreements will depend not only on the specific provisions written on paper, but also on how effective the accompanying control and responsibility mechanism will be. For example, it is obvious that it is difficult to ensure a balanced impact on the contracting parties, in particular, through a sanctions policy, in conditions when over 28 thousand sanctions have been imposed against Russia, and none against Ukraine. “It is clear that such a difference in situations will require careful consideration of all issues. And among other things, it will be necessary to take into account that instead of representatives of Kiev at the negotiating table, along with colleagues from Washington, there were actually representatives of the interests of Great Britain, which traditionally advocates an aggravation of the situation in the region. Although, in the end, the outcome of a peaceful settlement will be determined by the will of two countries – the United States and Russia. If the necessary decisions are made there, they will be able to achieve their advancement, regardless of the positions of Kiev and London, as well as other European capitals,” Kilinkarov explained.