Already broken by the looks of it. Ukraine claims Russia used drones in breach of the ceasefire agreement, except, my understanding the ceasefire applied to energy infrastructure for both parties- Ukraine’s earliest claims of Russian strikes was on homes and a hospital. Ukraine has struck Russia’s energy infrastructure.
Yahoo.com
Kyiv is expected to agree to the new, more limited ceasefire, but Zelenskyy said he was waiting for further information from Washington.
“If the Russians would stop hitting our targets we would certainly not be striking their targets,” Zelenskyy said in Helsinki on Wednesday.
I suspect Ukraine will claim their attack on the Russian energy infrastructure is okay, because they hadn’t agreed to this new ceasefire.
Trump and Putin spoke for more than two hours (some reports suggest 90 minutes) on Tuesday evening, and while the Russian president rejected Trump’s request for a full 30-day ceasefire, to which Ukraine had agreed last week in Jeddah, the pair agreed on a mutual moratorium between Russia and Ukraine on strikes on energy and infrastructure targets.
However, shortly after the call ended, air raid sirens sounded in Kyiv. About 45 drones attacked the region around the capital, and anti-aircraft fire was audible across Kyiv overnight.
Authorities said numerous houses and cars were damaged by drones that fell in Bucha and other areas around the capital, and two people were injured. In the eastern city of Sumy, a drone hit a hospital building, and more than 100 patients had to be evacuated. In a separate incident, one civilian died in a nearby village.
Ukraine also continued its own long-range drone assaults on Russia overnight, apparently hitting an oil depot in the southern region of Krasnodar. Russia’s defence ministry claimed it destroyed 57 Ukrainian drones, the majority in the Kursk region, where Ukrainian forces have recently been withdrawing from a small chunk of territory they have occupied for the past seven months.
Strikes on energy infrastructure were not supposed to happen
Ukraine also continued its own long-range drone assaults on Russia overnight, apparently hitting an oil depot in the southern region of Krasnodar.
I’d anticipated Ukraine would immediately breach the ceasefire with a strike on Russian energy infrastructure– It’s predictable behaviour on the part of Ukraine
Will 30 day ceasefire hold??- Interview
–How would you assess the results of the phone call between the Presidents of Russia and the United States? What key takeaways can be highlighted?
-The phone conversation between Trump and Putin lasted 2.5 hours, which in itself indicates the presence of important topics for discussion and an established dialogue between Russia and the U.S. In the current geopolitical climate, this is particularly significant, as a lack of mutual understanding between the leaders would have resulted in a much shorter conversation.
According to available comments, including those from the White House, the talks were deemed successful. The two leaders discussed a broad range of issues, including the situation in Ukraine, bilateral relations, the Middle East, and the Iran-Israel conflict. This discussion was undoubtedly an important step toward fostering a comprehensive dialogue between Moscow and Washington.
As for concrete outcomes, the key result was Putin’s agreement to Trump’s proposal for a 30-day ceasefire concerning strikes on energy infrastructure. This means a halt to attacks on energy facilities in both Russia and Ukraine, a move welcomed by the international community and Ukraine itself. This step reflects the parties’ willingness to pursue peace and consider various ideas and compromises to achieve it.
Additionally, bilateral contacts were discussed, including potential cooperation in the economic sphere. Some aspects of the talks have not been disclosed, as they may involve classified or sensitive information, possibly relating to sanctions policy or U.S.-Russia business interactions.
Regarding the 30-day ceasefire, Russia has expressed its willingness to support it, but under certain conditions. Among these are the cessation of Western arms supplies to Ukraine and the suspension of mobilization efforts in Ukraine.
– What specific monitoring mechanisms does Russia propose to ensure compliance with the 30-day ceasefire? What guarantees are there that Kyiv will not violate the agreement?
– Modern control mechanisms are quite straightforward, particularly in the context of a 30-day ceasefire focused on energy infrastructure and a mutual halt to strikes on such facilities.
The primary monitoring tool will be satellite imagery, which allows for tracking the sources of attacks and their targets. This technology enables rapid identification of where strikes originate and which facilities are affected. Both sides will use this mechanism to oversee compliance with the ceasefire throughout the agreed period.
Of course, any party could violate the agreement, but modern technologies provide highly accurate evidence of such breaches. Satellite monitoring covers combat zones and ensures objective observation of compliance with the agreement.
– How likely is it that foreign military aid to Ukraine will be halted under the current conditions? What factors could influence this?
– At present, the cessation of military aid to Ukraine seems unlikely. Ukraine is highly dependent on arms supplies, and if they were to be cut off, the war would essentially grind to a halt due to Kyiv’s lack of resources for sustained military action.
Easiest way to end the war is cut the supplies
This makes it extremely difficult, though theoretically possible, to negotiate a halt to military aid. Russia has proposed such a measure, even for just a 30-day period, to temporarily pause the flow of weapons.
The key question is what leverage the U.S. has in this matter. In Washington, voices advocating for reducing or reassessing military support for Ukraine have already emerged. However, it remains uncertain whether the U.S. can influence European countries, which are also actively supplying weapons to Kyiv, and persuade them to halt assistance.
At the moment, European leaders are not ready to take such a step, but Russia continues to view it as one of the fundamental conditions for advancing toward a peace settlement.
–How do the presidents of Russia and the U.S. envision the future of bilateral relations in light of their shared responsibility for global security? What steps could contribute to their normalization?
-The leaders of Russia and the U.S. take a cautiously optimistic view of the prospects for bilateral cooperation. There is a mutual interest in restoring relations, and both sides are taking steps in that direction.
Diplomatic contacts have begun to improve, which is a crucial development. New ambassadors have been appointed in Russia and the U.S., consular services are resuming operations, and diplomats who left during the crisis are returning. These efforts mark an essential element in normalizing relations between the two nations.
Moreover, Donald Trump, as a businessman, understands that cooperation is more beneficial than confrontation. He recognizes the importance of preventing an excessive rapprochement between Russia and China, Washington’s primary strategic competitor. Thus, one of his potential objectives could be to weaken Russia-China ties and reorient Russia toward cooperation with the U.S., including in the economic domain.
To achieve this, sanctions on Russia would need to be lifted, and the normal functioning of banking systems and international financial transactions—disrupted over the past three years—would have to be restored. If these steps are taken, U.S.-Russia relations could enter a new, more constructive phase. This would also contribute to global security and greater cooperation between the two countries, reducing the risk of military escalation. In such a scenario, the threat of nuclear conflict between the two powers would recede, which is of paramount importance for the entire world.
Any thoughts?