Week in Review: Ceasefire Chess, Caucasus Complications, And More...

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

Ukraine–Russia: Well Past 24 Hours

Talks began in Riyadh on March 23 between U.S. and Ukrainian delegations, focusing on a 30-day ceasefire on energy infrastructure and Black Sea maritime security. The following day, U.S.–Russia negotiations also took place but concluded without a joint statement. While both sides described the talks as “constructive,” disagreements remained over the scope of protected infrastructure.

Ukraine demanded that railways and ports be added to the ceasefire list, while Russia only agreed to energy-related sites.

In parallel, President Donald Trump expressed frustration but reiterated his commitment to brokering a deal. Trump, moreover, seemed to have acknowledged that Russia has been dragging out the war.

On March 25, an agreement was announced to halt all strikes on energy infrastructure in both Ukraine and Russia. Reports also surfaced that Astana and Kyiv were discussing the Caspian Pipeline Consortium; Kazakhstan's oil travels via this system running through Russia. Previous attacks have surfaced concerns. 

At the same time, the agreement’s maritime provisions have raised questions among NATO’s Black Sea members, who remain excluded from the U.S.-Russia bilateral framework and fear the deal will allow Russia to increase its presence in the area.

Notably, Russia proposed conditions for implementing the above deal: lifting financial sanctions, including reconnection to SWIFT, and lifting restrictions on agricultural trade. European nations rejected the proposal, while the Trump Administration appeared more receptive, though still constrained in their ability to act unilaterally.

Ukraine, for its part, committed to avoiding military use of commercial vessels in the Black Sea. Still, it warned it would consider the movement of Russian military ships beyond the eastern part of the sea a breach. 

Zelenskyy, meanwhile, has expressed skepticism over Russian compliance and called for stronger guarantees from Washington.

Although talks are seemingly "progressing," subsequent statements, such as Putin's questioning of the current Ukrainian leadership's legitimacy and Peskov saying Moscow reserves the right not to follow the agreement, reinforce opinions that the Kremlin's goals regarding Ukraine remain largely unchanged.

Indeed, reports on Russia's aims to launch spring offensives in Sumy and Kharkiv, coupled with Putin's superficial support for a UN peacekeeping mission, reflect such intentions. Russia remains on the UN Security Council, allowing it to influence decisions on the mission and how it would operate — much like it has done with Abkhazia, Transnistria, and Syria.

The White House did reject Putin’s proposal, affirming Ukraine’s legitimacy under its constitution, while Trump threatened Russia with financial penalties.

Yet, these declarations followed Trump's public squabble with the Ukrainian president, as well as the administration’s previous questioning of Zelenskyy's legitimacy and its call for elections, and a U.S. presidential administration member echoing Russian propaganda talking points. 

This is not the first time Trump has threatened financial retaliation — a tactic that has lost potency against a nation willing to bear steep costs. He has also jeopardized Western unity with similar threats toward European allies. Trump discussed maintaining Western pressure on Moscow, though nothing beyond optics, as his own team faces mounting scrutiny at home. 

Furthermore, concerns that the Black Sea Ceasefire deal benefits Moscow and its strategic stalling, in tandem with the overall fragility and reported violations, point to little progress. Conflicting start dates for the ceasefire highlight how disjointed the agreement remains.

Washington's shifting focus toward deterrence of China might enhance Moscow's negotiating posture vis-à-vis Ukraine and China, as the Trump Administration seeks to drive a wedge between the two and pushes on with its trade war against Beijing. Russia may use the optics of a thaw with Washington to strengthen its hand in dealings with Beijing.

Nonetheless, the Kremlin is unlikely to embrace geopolitical realignments. Instead, it appears poised to manipulate such attempts to string along talks to advance its battlefield positions and perceives ties with their Chinese counterparts as closer.

For now, peace remains more rhetorical than real, circling the same loop it claims to be breaking, underscoring the need for Europe to continue supporting Ukraine.

South Caucasus: Peace Talks and Strategic Choices

On March 27, Armenian Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan commented on Armenia and Azerbaijan's finalized draft peace agreement. Mirzoyan called the deal a “breakthrough,” citing mutual recognition of territorial integrity and adherence to the 1991 Almaty Declaration.

The agreement is seen as a step toward regional stability, although unresolved issues still linger. Against that backdrop, Russia’s Deputy PM Alexei Overchuk warned Armenia it must choose between economic ties with the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) or integration with the EU, while Armenia’s parliament passed a resolution signaling intent to pursue EU membership.

Separately, Iran’s Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi visited Armenia for talks on bilateral relations and regional dynamics, reaffirming Tehran's commitment to Armenian territorial integrity. Amid ambiguity regarding signing the finalized text, such visits demonstrate Yerevan maintaining alternative support, while expert opinion has emerged that the window for inking the deal could be closing. 

The U.S. has pushed Ankara to foster peace between the two nations, yet Türkiye has backed Azerbaijan, which continues facilitating Turkish energy versatility, a longstanding policy. Although what is to come of the ongoing unrest in Türkiye has yet to be seen, there is little reason to believe this would significantly affect said support for Baku in the foreseeable future.

At the same time, Russia shares specific interests with Baku, such as the Zangezur Corridor. Yerevan’s “pivot” to the West may have also raised eyebrows, though it unfolds alongside strained ties between Moscow and Baku following the AZAL plane crash.

Even so, Yerevan's leaning toward the West has been perceived as political, economic, and diplomatic signaling since the nation remains a member of the Eurasian Economic Union along with Russia.

Moscow and Baku's relations have developed pragmatically, suggesting flexibility even in sensitive topics like the crash. In that regard, although no specific details became public, Putin has made overtures to Azerbaijan's President Ilham Aliyev. 

Russian officials have made complementary appeasements in the background, e.g., the decision to construct a monument to Heydar Aliyev in Moscow and Valentina Matviyenko's visit to Baku; she expressed condolences to the Azerbaijani President over the crash.

How much further the Kremlin will go seems hinged on what the final investigation uncovers. That process, however, runs on a timeline largely detached from the Armenia–Azerbaijan peace negotiations, excluding it as a constraint on Moscow's ability to cooperate with Baku.

Moscow is expected to maintain pressure on Armenia over its Western-oriented direction, whose energy and trade sectors remain heavily tied to Russia, as Yerevan simultaneously faces domestic tensions, including growing dissatisfaction with the treatment of Nagorno-Karabakh refugees.

Armenian authorities have expressed interest in Turkmenistan's gas, a nation also keen on expanding economic outlets. Still, pricing, a historical deal breaker for Turkmen authorities, could complicate any agreement.

Georgia: Western Pushback

Georgia’s President Mikheil Kavelashvili withdrew a constitutional complaint against the controversial “foreign influence” law, initially challenged by former President Salome Zourabichvili. The withdrawal came as the ruling Georgian Dream party pushed a new bill modeled on the U.S. FARA law, prompting backlash from civil society.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed the MEGOBARI Act — a bipartisan bill offering Georgia economic incentives in exchange for democratic reforms but threatening sanctions if the country continues its current path.

The legislation reflects growing U.S. concern over democratic backsliding and Georgia's drift away from the West.

Georgian Dream has also proposed banning opposition parties linked to ex-President Saakashvili, labeling them “anti-Georgian.” This, along with the ongoing prosecution of Former Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili and crackdown on dissent, indicates little change in the trajectory of Georgia's current leadership despite further pressure.

Tbilisi has also increased economic ties with other countries, including Russia and China, providing Georgia's current leadership with alternatives.