Week in Review: Ceasefire Unravels, Türkiye Roils, Caucasus Peace in Limbo

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

Ukraine, Russia, and the United States: Partial Ceasefire?

On March 18, U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin held a two-hour phone call to discuss the war in Ukraine. Reportedly, the call resulted in an agreement on a partial ceasefire, specifically a 30-day suspension of Russian strikes on Ukrainian energy infrastructure.

A prisoner exchange was also confirmed. Trump stated that further negotiations were scheduled for March 23 in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, led by U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff. He also noted that many elements of a broader peace agreement had been agreed upon.

Putin, however, reiterated that a complete ceasefire would only be possible under conditions that include halting foreign military aid to Ukraine, ending forced mobilization, and ceasing rearmament efforts. While not outright rejecting a broader truce, Putin framed these conditions as necessary.

Trump denied that military aid had been part of the conversation.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy confirmed the prisoner swap but once again emphasized that Ukraine must be included in any negotiations, stating that his country would not accept a ceasefire agreement made without its participation. He reaffirmed Ukraine's willingness to observe a pause in attacks on energy infrastructure but awaited further details on broader ceasefire terms.

Hours later, Russia broke its pledge by attacking Ukraine with 150 drones overnight, including strikes on energy facilities. Ukraine responded.

During the same week, Ukraine launched its largest drone strike to date on Russia’s Saratov region, targeting Engels-2, a strategic bomber airfield. Russian authorities reported 54 drones intercepted, while Ukrainian sources claimed the strike hit an ammunition depot and caused significant damage to nearby residential areas.

In parallel, France hosted a summit on March 21 in Paris with members of the so-called “coalition of the willing” to rally further military and logistical support for Ukraine.

French President Emmanuel Macron criticized Russia’s limited response to ceasefire proposals and called for renewed resolve among allied nations to sustain Ukraine’s defense.

Still, the EU's military support for Ukraine has hit snags.

Regardless, Ukraine seems to be in a better position on the front with Russian advances slowing, though expert Michael Kofman cautions that this is not indicative of a stabilized front. Russia could regain momentum, but Ukraine's forces have the capability to make every advance costly. 

Such conditions indicate that Kyiv is in a position to hold out for a more favorable outcome, yet it looks to be partially hinged on the Trump administration's efforts, which have been more optics than fruitful and stalled by Moscow.

Furthermore, the European Union demonstrated further indecisiveness by halting discussions on confiscating approximately €274 billion in frozen Russian assets, citing legal risks and financial market concerns. 

Several member states argued that seizure would set a dangerous precedent and reduce the EU’s leverage in future peace negotiations with Moscow. The assets will remain immobilized until Russia ends the war and provides reparations.

Simultaneously, the EU moved forward with the "Readiness 2030" defense strategy, proposing a €150 billion fund to enhance the bloc’s military capabilities. The plan encourages member states to prioritize procurement from European suppliers.

It excludes arms companies from the U.S., UK, and Türkiye unless those countries sign formal security pacts with the EU.

This indeed leaves Kyiv in a predicament, as the EU seemingly prioritizes its defense interests, and the U.S. gradually backs out of sanction monitoring groups and scales back anti-Russian diversion operations in Europe.

Kyiv's own skepticism toward future talks also speaks volumes regarding the unlikelihood of an optimistic outcome.

Nonetheless, to count Ukraine out is premature. Their forces have employed less conventional means of fighting, and domestic drone production is flourishing, which has and will counter Russia's numerical and production advantages. Europe's self-prioritization also does not mean less support.

Despite the limited results, Ukraine’s endorsement of Trump’s efforts appears strategic — allowing Washington to 'learn by doing' and paving the way for deeper involvement. Hopes for an Easter ceasefire are still questionable; sustainability remains the key component, which needs to be more than just on paper.

Türkiye Caught Up

On March 19, Turkish authorities arrested Istanbul Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu, one of President Erdoğan’s most prominent political opponents.

Following the arrest, mass protests erupted across Istanbul and other cities. Thousands of demonstrators took to the streets, and reports surfaced of clashes with police and tear gas use. Authorities imposed strict measures, including internet throttling, bans on public gatherings, metro closures, and increased police checkpoints.

Opposition leaders denounced the arrest as a politically motivated effort to eliminate Erdoğan’s main rival. Despite this, the CHP opposition party reaffirmed that İmamoğlu would remain their presidential candidate.

This development could pose a significant challenge for the acting authorities, as this is the first such widespread demonstration in 12 years. 

Earlier in the week, Erdoğan held a phone call with U.S. President Donald Trump, during which he expressed support for Washington’s efforts to resolve the war in Ukraine.

He also urged Trump to lift sanctions on Syria, finalize Türkiye’s F-16 fighter jet purchase, and reinstate Ankara into the F-35 program. Erdoğan emphasized Türkiye’s readiness to contribute to peace efforts and positioned the country as a potential mediator between Russia and Ukraine.

Ankara is keen on reintegrating Syria into the global community. The EU has lifted key restrictions, whereas the U.S. has granted specific transactions. Yet, Washington could be unwilling to overstep boundaries.

They will prioritize what is seen as progress in negotiations with Moscow over its war against Ukraine but will not risk creating tensions with Israel. Russia wishes to maintain its military bases in Syria, while Israel has been intensifying its military operations, undermining Damascus.

With the protests, Ankara will have to shift political focus internally, with economic woes looming.

How long the shift will be is unclear.

This does not necessarily signal a halt in support for Damascus, though. 

Despite reaching the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and Syrian authorities striking a deal on reintegration, the Syrian Democratic Forces blamed Türkiye for strikes into northern Syria.

A Turkish occupation aircraft bombed a farming family south of Kobani in the late hours of Sunday night,  the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) said in a statement.

Ankara has not issued a statement. 

While Ankara historically frames its actions as counterterrorism, the strikes, coupled with preceding statements of ongoing operations against "Kurdish militants" in northern Syria, suggest lingering distrust between the two parties.

Indeed, the SDF reportedly clashing with the Turkish-backed Syrian National Army (SNA) serves as further confirmation. This could spell trouble for an already fragile situation in Syria.

In addition, Syria faces other internal challenges, particularly after the violence that erupted earlier this month, which put the acting government under the international community's microscope. 

This will serve as a substantial test of the authorities' commitment to upholding their promises of accountability. The main challenge may be that some involved in the violence appear to be independent actors.

It will also allow them to differentiate themselves from the prior regime and their murky past. So far, their response has been declarative, but an investigative committee has been established and is required to submit its findings within 30 days of its formation.

South Caucasus: Border Tensions and Diplomacy

Armenia and Azerbaijan exchanged accusations of ceasefire violations during the week. On March 16 and again on March 20, Azerbaijan claimed Armenian forces opened fire on its border positions.

Armenia’s Ministry of Defense denied the allegations and called them disinformation, reiterating its longstanding proposal to create a bilateral investigative mechanism to verify such incidents. The European Union Monitoring Mission in Armenia (EUMA) dispatched patrols to affected areas along the border.

These incidents occurred amid ongoing peace negotiations, as both countries recently finalized the draft text of a comprehensive peace agreement. 

Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan reiterated the agreement is ready to be signed.

Whether the situation escalates or not remains difficult to foresee. Baku could be testing the waters, yet this is a long-standing occurrence, i.e., border fire claims, and perhaps Azerbaijan is attempting to force Yerevan to agree to conditions, such as the constitutional changes and the Zangezur Corridor.

Incidentally, Pashinyan announced a potential referendum on constitutional changes set for 2027.

Other officials have reaffirmed that the constitution should not hinder signing the peace deal, and almost 60% of Armenians believe it should be left as is.

Moreover, Yerevan is unlikely to abandon its logistical interests, i.e., The Crossroads of Peace, in exchange for another, leaving the peace deal situation uncertain.

Meanwhile, Georgian and Armenian authorities visited each other, and regional cohesion was a topic. Tbilisi could be trying to foster regional cooperation, especially considering its about-face from the West amid ongoing protests.

Still, the only actors able to put this matter to an end are Baku and Yerevan. The peace deal remains hostage to symbolism — constitutions, corridors, and history — with the Armenian side pushing for progress and the Azerbaijani one frequently moving the goalpost.