Ukraine and Russia have technically agreed to implement a ceasefire against each other’s energy infrastructure, though in practice, there’s been no common agreement between the two.
The two also ostensibly agreed to implement a ceasefire on the Black Sea, but Moscow later demanded additional conditions – such as the lifting of specific sanctions – that have not been agreed upon, as outlined in an earlier Kyiv Post analysis.
What does the energy ceasefire mean then?
The US version
In short, US officials stated that the US had reached an agreement with Ukraine and Russia individually to “develop measures for implementing” a ceasefire on energy infrastructure attacks.
Following high-stakes talks in Saudi Arabia on March 23–25 held between the US and Ukraine and, separately, between the US and Russia – the White House issued two statements that said the parties agreed that a ceasefire should be implemented, without immediately sharing an agreed upon wording.
“The United States and Ukraine agreed to develop measures for implementing President [Donald] Trump’s and President [Volodymyr] Zelensky’s agreement to ban strikes against energy facilities of Russia and Ukraine,” the version outlining the outcome agreed with Ukraine says.
“The United States and Russia agreed to develop measures for implementing President Trump’s and President [Vladimir] Putin’s agreement to ban strikes against energy facilities of Russia and Ukraine,” the version outlining the agreement with Russia says.
In other words, the parties agreed to ban strikes on energy facilities in principle, but they were supposed to work on a mechanism to implement the ceasefire, according to the White House.
Ukraine and Russia also ostensibly provided a list of facilities that should be protected, though those identified by Kyiv and Moscow appear to be different.
The Russian version
On March 25, the Kremlin unilaterally claimed that the ceasefire had started on March 18, on the day Trump spoke by phone with Putin about the ceasefire.
In the moratorium, it declared Russia listed the following structures under protection:
- Oil refineries
- Oil and gas pipelines and storage facilities, including pumping stations
- Electricity generation and transmission infrastructure, including power plants, substations, transformers, and distribution facilities
- Nuclear power plants
- Hydroelectric dams
“The temporary moratorium will be in force for 30 days, starting on March 18, 2025, and can be extended by mutual agreement,” the declaration reads.
“In the event of a violation of the moratorium by either party, the other party has the right to consider itself free from obligations to comply with it,” it adds.
The Ukrainian version
In summary, Ukraine said it had provided the US with a list of the types of facilities to be protected that differ from Moscow’s, but agreed to an unconditional energy ceasefire.
In a statement to the news outlet European Pravda, Ukraine’s Ministry of Energy said its oil and gas production facilities had not been included in Russia’s list, contrary to Kyiv’s agreement with the US. The exact list of facilities Kyiv presented is unclear.
“Ukraine has transferred and agreed with the American side on the typology of objects for all energy infrastructure facilities within the framework of the agreement to stop mutual strikes. This applies to the electric power, oil and gas complexes, nuclear and coal industries, power engineering – the production of energy equipment,” the ministry’s press service told European Pravda on March 26.
Zelensky also said that Kyiv did not agree to set the starting date as March 18, as claimed by the Kremlin.
“There is something that the Kremlin is lying about again: that the alleged silence in the Black Sea depends on the issue of sanctions and that the alleged date of the beginning of the silence on energy is March 18,” Zelensky said, according to CNN.
Why the differences matter, in practical terms
Both sides accused the other of alleged ceasefire violations following the talks and agreements, while the ceasefire’s imprecise details have made it difficult to apportion blame for breaches.
- On March 28, Russia struck gas production facilities in Ukraine’s Central Poltava region.
- The same day, Russia accused Ukraine of firing US-made HIMARS missiles at the Sudzha gas metering station in the Kursk region bordering Ukraine, a claim that Kyiv dismissed as a Russian “false flag.”
- On Tuesday, April 1, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andriy Sybiha said a Russian strike had damaged an energy facility in Kherson.
Considering how the terms and definition of the ceasefire were different for both parties, each can easily argue that it was the other party that violated the agreement first.
- For Russia, since the ceasefire was supposedly in place since March 18, any strikes by Ukraine after that date could be argued as a violation which Moscow could use as a justification for retaliation even though Kyiv was unaware of the Kremlin’s ceasefire plan and there was no agreement to it.
- For Ukraine – according to the White House’s declared wording – it had simply agreed to “develop measures for implementing” an energy infrastructure ceasefire which was not officially implemented, despite verbal agreements.
Hours after his verbal agreement on the energy ceasefire with Trump, Putin supposedly ordered the Russian military to halt drone strikes on Kyiv – even going as far as claiming his forces had shot down its own drones – while launching hundreds of drones against Ukraine, hitting a hospital in the Sumy region.
The ceasefire mechanism is fundamentally flawed
The developments have also highlighted a fundamental flaw in the US-brokered ceasefire approach, where it wants a halt to attacks to come first before details such as monitoring are ironed out.
A ceasefire should have clear terms defined for both parties, with a mediator enforcing – or at the minimum, monitoring – the ceasefire and potential violations.
There has been none.
Trump, and senior US officials, have argued that a ceasefire would pave the way to more serious negotiations, where a peace deal – including monitoring missions – can then be agreed upon.
But without a way to monitor a ceasefire, each side can also simply stage a provocation and accuse the other of violating the agreement – the drones and missiles keep flying, and no progress is made.