A Black Sea moratorium must not reward Russian escalation

Türkiye is responding to direct exposure

On 4 August, Türkiye's foreign ministry described Yaşar and Nadezhda as civilian vessels and called for urgent measures to protect navigation. Four days later, Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan said Ankara had sent a moratorium proposal to both Moscow and Kyiv.

Neither government had publicly accepted it by 10 August. Türkiye had not published a duration, a list of protected targets or a way to investigate violations. Without those details, the proposal was a diplomatic message rather than an agreement that ships could rely on.

Ankara has practical reasons to act. Turkish citizens have been injured, Turkish-owned ships use the route and the country controls access through the Straits. Safer navigation would also protect food shipments and reduce insurance costs across the region.

“Civilian protection should make the Black Sea safer, not make Russia's war easier to sustain.”

Civilian protection must not create false equivalence

A ceasefire at sea can impose rules on both sides without pretending that both sides have the same responsibility for the war. Russia created the conflict by invading Ukraine. It has repeatedly attacked Ukrainian ports that carry grain and other civilian exports. Ukraine's strikes on Russian assets take place within its defence against that aggression.

That distinction does not make every Ukrainian strike lawful or every Russian-linked vessel a military target. Each incident still requires evidence. It does mean that a moratorium cannot grant Russia a protected logistics network while leaving it free to attack Ukraine from land and air.

The 9 August Russian strike on Odesa shows the problem. Ukraine said the attack threatened food exports, while Russia claimed it hit fuel and storage linked to military activity. Ukraine also reported attacks on Russian tankers and cargo vessels used for wartime logistics. A monitoring body would need evidence about cargo, ownership, military use and the target selected. It should not settle disputes by repeating both governments' claims as if attribution alone answered the legal question.

The protected categories must be narrow and verifiable

The clearest starting point is civilian crews and vessels carrying verified civilian cargo. Ports are harder because the same terminal may handle grain, fuel and military supplies. Tankers and offshore facilities also require case-specific rules. Broad labels such as commercial or dual-use are not enough.

Türkiye could ask each side to submit protected vessels and facilities in advance, with cargo declarations available to an agreed monitor. The arrangement would need a rapid investigation procedure and a way to suspend protection when reliable evidence shows direct military use.

Traffic through the Turkish Straits was continuing normally on 9 August. That gives Ankara time to negotiate clear rules before fear, insurance costs or further casualties close routes in practice.

The agreement must constrain Russia, not Ukraine alone

Romania and Bulgaria also depend on safe shipping, ports and offshore infrastructure. They have an interest in a workable civilian-protection arrangement. As NATO and EU members, they also have an interest in ensuring that maritime safety is not used to weaken support for Ukraine.

A useful moratorium would reduce attacks on verified civilian shipping and Ukrainian export infrastructure, investigate violations independently and preserve Ukraine's ability to strike legitimate military targets. Anything broader risks freezing an imbalance created by Russian aggression. Civilian protection should make the Black Sea safer, not make Russia's war easier to sustain.