Week in Review: Ceasefire, Agreements, And More..

Orda has put together a brief synopsis of last week's news.

Ukraine, Russia, and the United States: Ceasefire Talks, Military Escalations, and Economic Measures

Ukraine accepted a 30-day ceasefire proposal from the United States, which includes a temporary halt to aerial and maritime hostilities, prisoner exchanges, and humanitarian efforts. Russia stalled on the ceasefire proposal, with President Putin demanding assurances that Ukraine would not use the pause to rearm or mobilize.

Before Putin made his demands, two Kremlin representatives, Dimitry Peskov and Yuri Ushakov, voiced reservations as well, suggesting Moscow is more keen to stall. Moreover, reports that Moscow requested former U.S. General Keith Kellogg's exclusion from peace talks and the subsequent denial, coupled with Putin's rejection of the ceasefire and Kellogg's eventual removal, confirm such an interpretation.

The White House continues to project 'cautious optimism,' but Moscow's power plays signal that the Kremlin is kicking the can down the road.

On March 11, while the above talks occurred, Ukraine projected its ability to strike within Russia with a large-scale drone attack on Moscow. Russian officials claimed to have intercepted 337 drones, calling it the "most massive attack" on the city.

In parallel, Russian forces announced further advances in the Kursk region, capturing 12 settlements and taking control of Sudzha. This effectively ended Ukraine's military incursion that forced Russia to commit units to a separate front.

Against that backdrop, the U.S. resumed intelligence sharing with Ukraine and tightened economic pressure on Moscow by allowing General License 8L to expire and cutting off payments for Russian energy exports.

Contradicting reports had emerged of secret U.S.-Germany discussions about restoring Russian energy flows to Europe under U.S. oversight post-war, casting doubt on the longevity of the above decision. Indeed, while cutting payments off will not stop Russian energy exports, it will create additional difficulties and further costs.

Regardless, the EU bloc seems hesitant to return to former dependencies on Russian energy. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio also claims the U.S. has not engaged in discussions with the European Union about relaxing sanctions against Russia. 

The EU stands to seek to boost its military posture by bringing Türkiye into the fold, something Erdoğan has openly supported. Still, some may see Ankara's close ties with nations like Russia, its EU bid stalling, and regional disputes, e.g., between Türkiye and Greece, as prominent hurdles.

Hesitance may prove costly, as China, Iran, and Russia seem to be increasing cooperation, while the U.S.'s involvement in European security remains uncertain.

This week's developments have provided little clarity on how and when a ceasefire will come to fruition.

Even if it does, it is not guaranteed to be sustainable, especially considering past violations. At the same time, Ukrainian officials' support of a U.S.-brokered ceasefire, be it temporary or not, can reveal its fragility and force further intervention.

Still, Trump's past diplomatic efforts have often prioritized rapid, high-profile agreements over prolonged negotiations, raising concerns about the sustainability of any agreement brokered.

South Caucasus: Armenia-Azerbaijan Peace Agreement

Armenia and Azerbaijan finalized a draft peace agreement, resolving longstanding disputes following the 2023 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. As Baku pressed on with claims against Yerevan over constitutional changes, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan countered by raising similar concerns about Azerbaijan’s constitution.

Pashinyan also underscored that the draft agreement ushered in a new reality where said claims could be addressed, reaffirming the rejection of Azerbaijani claims of "Western Azerbaijan," i.e., an incendiary term used in Azerbaijan's narratives about sovereign Armenia.

Yerevan accused Baku of using Azerbaijani-held Armenian prisoners to escalate pressure. Additionally, Pashinyan's dismissal of Baku's favored Zanzegur Corridor, in tandem with Armenian Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan's statement confirming the lack of provisions regarding corridors in the peace agreement, demonstrates that underlying reasons for tensions between the two nations remain intact. 

Meanwhile, the agreement prohibits third-party forces along the border, a concerning development, especially considering the recent border-fire claims.

Such an outcome could limit Yerevan's recourse. Given Azerbaijan’s unyielding stance, Baku is unlikely to permit new border missions, particularly those led by Western actors.

Yet, Armenia has henceforth boosted its defense capabilities and has long seen the former security guarantors, i.e., the  Russian peacekeepers, as incapable, suggesting a calculated approach to the situation.

Pashinyan's overtures to Türkiye — such as admitting that Armenian genocide recognition is not a policy priority — suggest a potential strategic move, albeit one unlikely to yield significant results. Ankara has long backed Azerbaijan and is unlikely to intervene, while Pashinyan's statement also triggered backlash in Armenia.

Central Asia: Border Agreement Between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan

Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan signed a border agreement, settling a territorial dispute that previously led to violent clashes. The treaty, signed on March 13, reopened borders and air travel, easing tensions that had led to armed clashes in recent years.

The move was widely welcomed, marking an instance of long-term conflict resolution in the region.

As we have written, both nations seem keen on focusing on internal matters and ensuring regional cohesion; a landmark border agreement between Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan evidences the latter.

Said cohesion will also enhance logistics in Central Asia, including the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route (middle corridor), China's Belt and Road Initiative, and the China-Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan railway, effectively fostering economic growth. 

This nuance could have also pushed Dushanbe and Bishkek toward a peaceful resolution, especially considering their reliance on China. Nonetheless, the agency of the two nations in the matter should not be overlooked.