Limited Ceasefire Only, More Negotiations Agreed, Role Of Middle East Growing.

## A process, not a single deal: why the latest exchanges matter What emerges from the recent exchange is a clear shift from spectacle to procedure: the conversation reframes the ceasefire proposal as the beginning of a diplomatic process rather than a one-off grand bargain. Far from an all-or-nothing moment, the discussion signals the construction of layered, compartmentalized negotiations in which incremental, verifiable restraints and confidence-building steps can accumulate toward a broader normalization of relations. That shift matters for three reasons. First, it reduces the risk that mismatched expectations will collapse talks at an early stage. Second, it makes room for reciprocal, technically precise measures that parties can implement and verify. Third, it opens the door for third-party leverage — including from regional actors — to influence outcomes beyond the immediate battlefield. The conversation therefore marks a tactical pivot: ceasefire talk is being repurposed into a menu of negotiable items and a set of expert task forces to pursue them. ## The Jeddah framework and the new U.S. mediator role A crucial antecedent to the exchange is the agreement reached in Jeddah, where one party effectively authorized another to act as its chief interlocutor. That decision reconfigured the negotiation table: it placed a major external power in the lead, obliging the primary belligerent to accept third-party management of its diplomatic interactions with the opposing power. Practically, this means Washington now carries both the responsibility and the leverage to bargain on behalf of Kyiv — including on the crucial issue of a thirty-day ceasefire and prisoner exchanges — while inviting but not centering European participation. This design is significant because it concentrates bargaining chips and rhetorical ownership in the hands of the mediator. The mediator’s prior suspension and resumption of military aid and intelligence-sharing become tangible instruments of diplomacy rather than merely military policy choices. As the conversation outlines, that pause established credibility: it proved that military support could be withheld and therefore used as a conditional lever to secure reciprocal steps. The mediator-led framework also clarifies the pace and sequencing of talks, enabling a gradualist approach that may be more resilient than synchronous, all-encompassing bargains. ## Russian priorities and the quid pro quo the conversation outlines The discussion’s readouts illuminate the principal conditions that must be addressed to move from declarations to durable restraint. From the perspective conveyed in the exchange, three military-related issues are paramount. First, effective, verifiable control across frontline sectors is non-negotiable if a ceasefire is to hold. Second, the cessation of forced mobilization and of rearmament of the targeted regime are presented as preconditions for reducing the risk of renewed escalation. Third, the complete stoppage of foreign military aid and intelligence support to the adversary is framed as an essential bargaining chip to prevent escalation and to create space for political settlements. These priorities form a simple rule-of-thumb: when one side is asked to pause offensive and enabling activity, the other expects demonstrable constraints on its opponent’s capacity to resume hostilities. In the exchange, those expectations are matched with reciprocal gestures—limited pauses in attacks on civilian infrastructure, an agreed-to pause on targeting energy assets, and a commitment to prisoner exchanges and humanitarian treatment for those who surrender. Together, these measures create a web of interlocking assurances designed to reduce immediate violence while the more technically complex issues are handled by specialist teams. ## Compartmentalization and task forces: learning old lessons for a new contest A striking thread in the exchange is the explicit turn toward compartmentalized bargaining — the creation of distinct “baskets” of negotiation, each handled by expert task forces. This approach revives a long-proven technique from Cold War-era diplomacy: break the agenda into tractable chunks so that progress in one domain is not held hostage to impasse in another. Pragmatically, that means separate teams will handle ceasefire mechanics, prisoner exchanges, navigation and Black Sea safety, energy infrastructure protection, and other discrete issues. This methodology has three advantages. It enables parallel progress at different speeds; it lowers the political temperature by translating abstract demands into technical, verifiable procedures; and it creates multiple opportunities for mutual gains, reducing the zero-sum character of the overall contest. It also institutionalizes the negotiation, making it harder for episodic battlefield events or domestic politics to derail the entire enterprise. The risk, however, is that compartmentalization may allow parties to cherry-pick areas for compliance while dragging their feet on harder topics. The design of robust monitoring, verification, and sequencing mechanisms within each task force will therefore be decisive. ## Practical steps already on the table: black sea safety, energy, and prisoners The conversation puts several concrete moves on the table that can be implemented relatively quickly and assessed objectively. Agreements to refrain from strikes on energy infrastructure for a defined period, to protect navigational safety in maritime zones, and to exchange prisoners and evacuate the wounded are direct confidence-building measures. These steps serve dual purposes: they lower human suffering and industrial disruption in the short term, and they test the willingness of each side to abide by negotiated restraints. Energy infrastructure and maritime safety carry particular symbolic and pragmatic weight. Attacks on civilian energy networks amplify humanitarian crises and complicate post-conflict recovery; maritime incidents can widen the conflict by drawing in neutral flag states or commercial shipping interests. A verifiable pause on such attacks, coupled with agreed inspection or monitoring teams, offers quick wins that are attractive to domestic audiences on both sides and to international stakeholders dependent on stable energy and trade routes. The prisoner exchanges, meanwhile, are high-return humanitarian steps that provide political cover for leaders to claim tangible progress. ## The widening canvas: Middle East and nonproliferation as bargaining threads Perhaps the most consequential expansion in scope is the discussion’s explicit linkage to Middle Eastern dynamics and nonproliferation. The conversation frames Ukraine not as a purely bilateral crisis but as one element within a broader project of rapprochement. In that light, regional crises and nuclear proliferation concerns — notably those involving Iran — are folded into the diplomatic agenda. This expansion reflects a strategic logic: normalizing major-power relations over multiple issue-areas reduces the incentive to treat any single theater as a proxy battleground. That broader canvas also creates points of leverage. For example, a mediator seeking Russian cooperation on pressure toward Tehran can offer reciprocity in Ukraine-related negotiation threads. Conversely, Russia’s ties with regional actors give it influence that may be pivotal for Washington’s objectives in the Middle East. The mutual interest in nonproliferation, stability in the Red Sea, and coordinated action at international forums such as the United Nations becomes part of the bargaining currency — enabling package deals that bundle security assurances, sanctions relief, or diplomatic recognition in creative combinations. ## Risks, verification challenges, and political constraints Despite the cautious optimism that comes through in the exchange, significant risks remain. First, the foundational distrust of the Ky

Limited Ceasefire Only, More Negotiations Agreed, Role Of Middle East Growing. On March 18, Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump held a second phone conversation in which they discussed the US ceasefire proposal. Although European leaders tried to make it look as if this was a "take it or leave it" moment for Russia, we now understand that the USA was very realistic about this initial offer. It was nothing but a process starter and now the two teams in Washington and Moscow are working toward a realistic process that will end not only the war in Ukraine but lead to a normalisation of US-Russian relations. A surprising aspect of the readout is that the Middle East takes up more space than I had expected and that the Americans are apparently seeking Russia's help in their approach toward Iran. However, looking at the wording of the two documents, it seems that both sides are clear about the need to compartmentalise the negotiations and not connect different theatres but break the issues apart as to come to an understanding on the various bilateral issues separately. Good diplomacy finally taking place again. #M2 Hello, everybody. This is a quick video to give you an overview of the official communications from the Kremlin in Russia and the White House in the United States about the phone call that took place between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. This was the second phone call in which they discussed the United States' ceasefire proposal. What we have here now is quite significant. On the one hand, we have the Russians, who immediately came out with a readout of the phone conversation. We also have the Americans, who gave us a readout of how they portray what happened in this phone call. And reading these two in detail and comparing them can help us understand where the process currently stands. One thing is certain: in the mainstream media, we only get a narrative spin and not proper analysis, right? Let me just remind you where we stand. We had this agreement on March 11th that was struck in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, between the United States and Ukraine. Basically, what this agreement did was ensure that the Ukrainians are now on a short leash and that they agree the United States negotiates on their behalf with Russia. I did a segment on the first part of the agreement on March 12th. If you want to go and look it up on the channel, you will find my detailed assessment about this there. But the important thing here really is that the United States outlines what should be achieved and that it is now the time to begin a process towards lasting peace. This is the first significant part, right? The Ukrainians had to agree to this one and actually signed off on it. And then the United States establishes that it is she, that is, the U.S., which will communicate to Russia that Russian reciprocity is the key to achieving peace. So the Ukrainians agree that, OK, everything we decide -- 1 of 10 -- here, you, United States, you're going to do for us, on our behalf, because we now agree that you should lead the negotiations, right? This was one of the key and central points of this eight-hour negotiation marathon in Jeddah, to twist the arms of the Ukrainians to the point where they would agree, okay, it's the U.S. that does these negotiations. Then there are a couple of details that are mentioned, like that an exchange of prisoners of war would be one of the goals among many. Of course, the main part was that a 30-day ceasefire would start, right? This is what the U.S. said Ukraine has to agree to. This is something that Ukraine wanted. And actually, as I discussed before, this is something that, if it came true, would help the Ukrainians most, right? This would be in favor of the Ukrainians because they're losing on the battlefield, and it is utterly clear that they're losing on the battlefield. So a ceasefire would basically mean a freeze on the battlefield, which would be good for the Ukrainians, but which is the main reason why people on these channels and so on said the Russians will never agree to this. Also, because the Russians said they will not agree to a ceasefire, right? So the question then was, what will come out from the Kremlin about this? Let me also just point out again that in the Jeddah agreement between Ukraine and the United States, it was fixed there that the United States committed to discussing these specific proposals with a representative of Russia. Again, it's the U.S. in charge. The Ukrainian delegation reiterated that European partners shall be involved in the peace process. Although this sounds as if the Europeans would be involved, what this means is that the Europeans are excluded. It is clear the Europeans and Ukraine are not going to be at the negotiating table, period. That's what the U.S. established here. Now come the backdoor negotiations that happened between Ukraine and U.S. negotiators like Vitkov in Moscow in order to lead to the great phone call between the United States and Russia. And here we really need to go through what Russia tells us, because what Russia understands this call was about is what will determine whether or not things can really move forward. And luckily, I can report to you that this looks very promising, actually, although, as Alexander Mercurius on his channel already established, the Russians are not giving anything away militarily, although they are making goodwill gestures in order to keep the process alive. And I would like to put the most stress on this one. Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump do not understand what is going on currently as a kind of one-off grand deal or grand bargain that needs to be done with a handshake and then everything will be implemented. That's not what's going on. What's going on is a process, a peace process, and the process takes time. And this is what both leaders in the Kremlin and in the White House are most interested in. So now let's read the Kremlin's interpretation or depiction of the call first. The leaders continued their detailed and frank exchange of views on the situation surrounding Ukraine. Vladimir Putin extended gratitude to Donald Trump for his striving to achieve the noble goal of ending hostilities and loss of life. Confirming his fundamental commitment to finding a peaceful resolution to the conflict, the President of Russia expressed a willingness to thoroughly work out possible solutions in cooperation -- 2 of 10 -- with the American partners, aimed at reaching a settlement that would be comprehensive, reliable, and lasting, and naturally take into account the essential needs to eliminate the root causes of the crisis, as well as Russia's legitimate security interests. So, what the Russians are telling us here is that, in the grand scheme of things, regarding where the parties want to go, the Russians interpret that the Americans are on their side, that they want the same final goal. But, of course, there are now details to work out, but in the grand scheme, we're on the same page, is what the Russians are telling us here. Now, an important part concerning the U.S. President's proposal to declare a 30-day ceasefire: the Russian side outlined a number of significant points regarding ensuring effective control over a possible ceasefire along the entire front line, as well as the need to stop the forced mobilization in Ukraine and rearming the armed forces of Ukraine. This is, of course, very significant because it is a key component of what Russia wants to happen militarily and as a form of an agreement with the U.S. and, by extension, with NATO in order to move toward a comprehensive ceasefire. So again, the ceasefire is not something that you establish overnight. A ceasefire is something that you work toward. And now we get into the most important technical issues, practical issues that the Russians want to see happen. It was noted that some serious risk exists pertaining to the intractability of the Kyiv regime, which had repeatedly sabotaged and violated negotiated agreements. An emphasis was made on barbaric acts of terrorism committed by Ukrainian militants against civilians residing in the Kursk region. So here we have the Russians telling us that they told the Americans that they don't trust the Kyiv regime, that they don't trust Mr. Zelensky, and that a lot of care should be put into the handling of Ukraine by the United States, right? So that's apparently what they try to convey to the Americans, who they are now looking at as partners in the peace process. It was pointed out that the complete cessation of providing Kyiv with foreign military aid and intelligence must become the key condition for preventing an escalation of the conflict and making progress towards this resolution through political and diplomatic means. So here we have it. This is the Russians telling us what they want in exchange for implementing a proper ceasefire: cessation of military aid and intelligence, which is, of course, exactly what Donald Trump decided in the JEDA, or what the U.S. decided in the JEDA agreement with Ukraine to restart, right? Here it was declared that an immediate lift would happen on the pause of intelligence sharing and military assistance to Ukraine. So the U.S. is basically restarting military aid. And now we know why, because military aid and intelligence are some of the bargaining chips that the U.S. is bringing to the table with Russia. The fact that they halted it before now means that they showed the Russians that they are able and willing, under certain circumstances, to hold that support. This is now one of the U. S. bargaining chips, and Russia recognizes that it is such and says, "Look, we need to work toward you stopping military aid while we work toward then getting to the ceasefire where we want." -- 3 of 10 -- So we now see the outlines of how this negotiation will be narrowed down, right? It will happen through a limitation of support on the one hand in exchange for an ever-growing basket of ceasefires. And I'll come back to this in just a moment. But let's continue reading. Referring to Donald Trump's recent appeal to spare the lives of the Ukrainian servicemen surrounded in the Kursk region, Vladimir Putin confirmed that the Russian side was willing to embrace humanitarian motives and guaranteed that the soldiers of the armed forces of Ukraine would live and be treated fairly in accordance with Russian legislation and international law in the event of surrender. So, again, Vladimir Putin is saying, OK, we're giving you something. We will try to spare the lives of the Ukrainian soldiers in Kursk, of whom I understand there are not that many out there anymore. But the ones that surrender will benefit from the Geneva Convention and will be treated as prisoners of war, which means they will not be persecuted, prosecuted, or put into prison indefinitely. They basically can leave again once the conflict is over. I mean, all of these things are there. And so Vladimir Putin basically gives another thing that Trump wanted so that Donald Trump can say, look, we achieved quite a lot. We got a lot in this process. And a next very important passage in here. During the conversation, Donald Trump put forward proposals for the parties to mutually refrain from strikes on energy infrastructure for 30 days. Vladimir Putin responded favorably to the proposal and immediately gave the relevant order to the Russian troops. This is one more big victory for Donald Trump, something that he can bring home and say, like, look, we achieved now a 30-day ceasefire on airstrikes on energy infrastructure on both sides, which is a first way to then also check whether the Ukrainians are going to be able to live up to their promise of stopping this. Alexander Mercury pointed out that the Russians only sporadically fire at the energy infrastructure of Ukraine, about once a month, and that the last strike just took place a couple of days ago. So Vladimir Putin actually isn't real