Brokered by the United States (US) in March 2025, the memorandum signed between Russia and Ukraine aimed to ensure safe navigation in the Black Sea and was initially regarded as a significant step toward restoring regional stability. However, as of May 2025, the effectiveness and sustainability of this agreement are being seriously questioned. Although the memorandum sought to prevent the military use of commercial vessels and halt attacks on ports, these objectives have not materialized in practice.[i]
The phone call between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin on 19 May 2025 is seen as a critical juncture for the future of the memorandum. While the Black Sea Memorandum was not directly referenced in statements following the conversation, the two leaders’ positions on the ceasefire and regional attacks suggest the memorandum is effectively void. In the statement following the call, both sides expressed openness to a new ceasefire agreement; however, the Kremlin emphasized that the process would not yield tangible results in the short term.[ii] Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky stressed that the process should be conducted based on the core principles of international law—not on Russia’s terms—and categorically rejected Putin’s conditions regarding NATO membership renunciation and territorial concessions.[iii]
These diplomatic maneuvers reveal that the political will behind the memorandum remains fragile. Although the US appears willing to maintain its mediating role, President Trump’s statements clearly indicate that Washington expects more constructive steps from Moscow to sustain this role.
Military developments in the Black Sea further show that the memorandum lacks real influence on the ground. On 19 May 2025, the Ukrainian Armed Forces targeted a Russian natural gas production platform in the Black Sea, along with associated radar systems and ammunition depots, using unmanned aerial vehicles.[iv] This attack came in retaliation for a large-scale drone assault Russia had launched across Ukraine two days earlier.
These events indicate that the March agreement has been de facto suspended and that a significant gap has emerged in maintaining safe navigation in the Black Sea. Ukraine’s continued military operations to expand its capabilities in the region have also heightened Russia’s perception of a maritime threat. This dynamic suggests that both parties view the memorandum not as a security guarantee but as a tactical leverage tool in their broader power struggle.
The Black Sea Memorandum’s implications for the Grain Corridor remain uncertain. Russia’s unilateral withdrawal from the Black Sea Grain Initiative in 2023 had already disrupted this mechanism. Current efforts to revive the initiative are being met with caution by Ukraine, which sees them as a strategic ploy. Increasingly, Russia’s intentions in this area are viewed as focused more on extracting economic and diplomatic concessions from the West than on addressing humanitarian needs.[v]
In the short term, reviving a functional Grain Corridor will depend not only on a technical agreement between the parties but also on the provision of military-level security. Yet, under current tensions, who will ensure this security and how remains an open question. If left unresolved, the future of the corridor will hinge less on climate conditions or port infrastructure and more on shifting geopolitical balances and the intentions of major powers.
Looking ahead, the grain issue is likely to be evaluated alongside military presence and energy routes in the Black Sea, even being kept on the table as an “economic security card.” This creates serious uncertainty not only for Ukraine but also for grain-import-dependent countries in Africa and Asia. It is entirely plausible that Russia could leverage this card in a controlled way, turning food security into a tool of geopolitical bargaining. In response, the US and the European Union (EU) may be forced to work more intensively on alternative logistics routes and supply structures.
The US’s failure to fully coordinate the March 2025 Black Sea Memorandum with its NATO allies has created a significant strategic vulnerability within the alliance. The exclusion of countries with direct Black Sea coastlines—such as Türkiye, Romania, and Bulgaria—from the negotiation process has deeply shaken their perceptions of regional security. This approach, which undermines NATO’s deterrent posture in the region, has also raised questions about Washington’s regional leadership and credibility within the alliance.[vi]
This exclusionary approach has the potential to trigger a divergence in transatlantic relations, not only militarily but also politically. Being sidelined in decision-making processes regarding a region as critical to Europe’s security as the Black Sea is seen as unacceptable by allies. This could drive EU countries to push for more autonomous security frameworks apart from NATO. France, in particular, may revive its “strategic autonomy” doctrine in this context.
To compensate for this gap, the EU has taken initiative in the domain of economic sanctions. It has implemented new restrictions targeting around 200 vessels identified as part of Russia’s “shadow fleet,” which was allegedly created to bypass sanctions. Additional economic measures aimed at disrupting Russia’s weapons supply chains have also been introduced, with the intent of gradually constraining Moscow’s war capabilities.
However, for such sanctions to have long-term impact, economic pressure alone is not enough—they must be paired with diplomatic cohesion. NATO’s marginalization from strategic processes not only undermines the US’s central role but also opens the door for Russia to consolidate its regional gains. If this divergence deepens further, it could lead to lasting fractures in the transatlantic security architecture. Thus, for the continuity of the memorandum, it is not only Moscow that must change course—Washington must also reestablish strategic coordination with its allies.
As of May 2025, the geopolitical and practical relevance of the Black Sea Memorandum has significantly diminished. Military developments, failed diplomatic efforts, and lack of cohesion within NATO have rendered the agreement effectively unworkable. Ukraine, skeptical of the deal due to the absence of concrete security guarantees for its ports, has taken a cautious stance, while Russia continues to use the process as a strategic instrument.
In conclusion, the long-term viability of the memorandum hinges on the reduction of military engagements, the direct integration of NATO into the process, and the conduct of economic activities in the Black Sea in line with international law. Otherwise, the Black Sea Memorandum risks becoming a purely symbolic document, and the conflict in the region may escalate to global proportions.
[i] “Outcomes of the United States and Russia Expert Groups on the Black Sea”, The White House, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/2025/03/outcomes-of-the-united-states-and-russia-expert-groups-on-the-black-sea/, (Date Accessed: 20.05.2025).
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] “Trump Holds Call with Russia’s Putin on Ending the War in Ukraine”, The Wall Street Journal, https://www.wsj.com/world/trump-holds-call-with-russias-putin-on-ending-the-war-in-ukraine-d0d934af, (Date Accessed: 20.05.2025).
[iv] “Ukraine Drones Destroy Russian Radar, Supply Depots in the Black Sea”, New York Post, https://nypost.com/2025/05/19/world-news/ukraine-drones-destroy-russian-radar-supply-depots-in-the-black-sea/, (Date Accessed: 20.05.2025).
[v] “Experts React: What to Know About the Black Sea Cease-Fire Deal with Russia and Ukraine”, Atlantic Council,https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/experts-react/what-to-know-about-the-black-sea-cease-fire-deal-with-russia-and-ukraine/, (Date Accessed: 20.05.2025).
[vi] “US Keeps NATO Allies in the Dark on Russia Relations”, Euractiv, https://www.euractiv.com/section/defence/news/us-keeps-nato-allies-in-the-dark-on-russia-relations/, (Date Accessed: 20.05.2025).
