After three years of war between Russia and Ukraine, negotiations have led to a partial agreement for the first time. Talks that began in Saudi Arabia on March 23 concluded on March 25, resulting in a ceasefire agreement in the Black Sea between Russia and Ukraine, mediated by the United States. However, while the US President received gratitude from his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelenskyy also criticized the agreement, rejecting the idea of easing pressure on Russia in exchange for a ceasefire. Meanwhile, Russia has additional demands, including the partial lifting of sanctions, particularly those affecting the international banking system.
Is this agreement significant after three years of war? Political analyst Mirian Mirianashvili discusses these and other issues in an interview with Fronts News.
– Do you consider the Black Sea ceasefire a significant agreement, or, as analysts claim, was the Black Sea already de facto demilitarized since 2022, with Russia being the primary beneficiary of this deal?
– This decision is largely declarative. The reality is that Russia’s naval position in the Black Sea is currently weak. The Russian fleet cannot leave its ports because it lacks missile defense systems. Any attempt to sail out would likely be disastrous. These ships are essentially trapped in port, both above and below water, making their protection dependent on this positioning.
Russia cannot fire on Ukrainian ships from its ports because, to do so, it would need to position itself within the Black Sea in a way that allows its missiles to reach western areas near Romania and Bulgaria. This would also require air support, but neither Russian ships nor aircraft can effectively operate in these zones.
As a result, Russia has failed to disrupt Ukraine’s maritime trade. Meanwhile, Russia itself faces challenges integrating its ports into global trade, as all European ports are closed to Russian commerce. This is why Russia is demanding the legalization of its ports; otherwise, the ceasefire holds no real value for Moscow. In practical terms, civilian ships are already protected from attacks, and there is no ongoing trade through Novorossiysk that Ukraine could target. Additionally, Russia cannot launch attacks in the western Black Sea region due to technical constraints. In reality, this agreement primarily serves Russia’s interest in normalizing trade rather than military de-escalation.
– Western media reports suggest that during the Saudi Arabia talks, Russia also attempted to demand recognition of its control over Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson. Do you think Putin would actually give up these regions, or will he negotiate over them until the end?
– This is purely a bargaining tactic. Over the past year, Russia has gained only about 2,800–2,900 square kilometers of territory—roughly the size of Akhmeta District in Georgia—despite suffering approximately 150,000 casualties, with an equal number of wounded or maimed, according to British and American sources.
The idea that in 2025, Russia could capture territory 120 times larger than what it seized in 2024 is simply unrealistic. Eastern Ukraine covers around 300,000 square kilometers. Considering Russia’s current pace of territorial gains, it would take at least 150 years and the loss of approximately 70 million people to achieve this goal—an absurd proposition. Therefore, Putin’s claim over these regions is merely a bargaining chip in the negotiation process.
– There is growing speculation that the Kremlin is deliberately prolonging peace negotiations to capture more territory and gain leverage over Kyiv. If this is the case, is US President Donald Trump unaware of it, or is he simply trying to bring Putin to the negotiation table?
– Russia’s current military strategy indicates that it has about 16 to 17 months left for active operations on the frontline. A transportation collapse is beginning in Russia: road freight transport declined by 30% last year, and rail transport by 25%. This is a direct consequence of Russia’s inability to use European ports. Before the war, around 95% of Russia’s foreign trade relied on the Black Sea and Baltic Sea ports, which are now effectively non-operational.
Today, Russia depends on importing goods through the Far East and limited trade from Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan, which accounts for just 5-10% of its previous supply. The logistical challenges of transporting cargo through the Jvari Pass by truck versus handling shipments at Novorossiysk ports are incomparable. Russia is facing a transport crisis similar to the one that contributed to its struggles during World War I, when European ports were also closed to Russian trade.
Russia is currently relying on Chinese supply chains and maritime trade, but even that will not be enough to sustain this war beyond the next 17 months. While Moscow tries to disguise these problems with political rhetoric, the reality is clear to everyone.
– US President Trump knows this and acts according to his own interests. Some believe Trump aims to pull Russia away from China rather than push for its collapse. Do you think the US wants to avoid Russia’s complete downfall?
– Anglo-Saxon political doctrine fundamentally rejects the idea of Russia’s collapse. About a year ago, in April, Jake Sullivan, who was Biden’s National Security Advisor at the time, stated that if Russia collapses, it would essentially hand over Siberia to China on a silver platter. This would pose a serious threat to the US, similar to World War II, when there was a risk that a defeated Soviet Union could supply Germany with massive resources, making the Axis powers far stronger.
The same risk exists today. If Russia falls, China could gain control over Siberia, which is unacceptable to the U.S. Washington’s primary objective is to keep Russia intact, but neither victorious nor completely defeated. This is why American diplomacy is working to prevent Russia from fracturing. If necessary, the US might even step back from the negotiations and let both Ukraine and Russia weaken further before forcing them back to the table.
– There are reports that Trump’s administration is pressuring Ukraine to hold presidential elections. Some media sources claim the US already has preferred candidates to replace Zelenskyy. How do you see this internal dynamic playing out?
– Zelenskyy’s administration has been facing serious challenges for a while. He is struggling to step down because doing so would immediately raise questions about his personal accountability, not only regarding the fate of Western aid but also his role in surrendering parts of southern Ukraine to Russia in the early days of the war.
At the same time, Washington is still undecided on Zelenskyy’s successor. There are internal divisions within the US government on this matter. Figures like Elon Musk, Marco Rubio, and Trump’s inner circle are reportedly pushing their candidates in Ukraine. For now, Zelenskyy is managing to navigate between these competing factions, which is why he remains in power.
– On March 28, the leaders of 31 European states, along with the EU and NATO, agreed to increase Ukraine’s military, financial, and energy support while maintaining sanctions on Russia. They also initiated discussions about potentially sending European peacekeeping forces to Ukraine, with France and the UK leading the effort. What role does Europe play in this conflict?
– Out of these 31 states, real influence rests with about nine key countries. The rest are financially dependent on these main players. Contributions from Portugal, Italy, Spain, and Greece are negligible. Countries like Italy, which has gone bankrupt 14 times since World War II, and Greece, which only recently recovered from economic collapse, are themselves reliant on northern Europe.
Germany, the UK, and the Nordic countries, often referred to as the “Vikings,” are leading the charge. Europe is now positioning itself as a global player independent of American oversight. These nations view Ukraine’s one-million-strong army as a strategic asset, and there is an ongoing power struggle between the US and Europe over who will control Ukraine’s military and resources.
– Reports suggest Trump wants a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine by Easter. Do you think this is realistic?
– US Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently made a statement saying that setting time limits on the war is no longer a political priority. The ceasefire will happen when the right conditions are met. A key factor is China’s position—until China stops supporting Russia, Moscow still has 17 months of military capacity left.
Trump initially believed that limiting Ukraine’s aid would force Europe to follow suit, but that has not happened. Right now, China holds the key to Russia’s survival.
Elza Paposhvili
