Analysing IRA statements can be a bit like the Kremlinology of yesteryear. When trying to probe the secrets of a closed world one needs to be sensitive to hints and implications, shifts and suggestions, overtones and undercurrents. Lives and the future of a whole society may hang in the balance.
Given the hatred and the fierce passions the IRA inspires in so many quarters, it can be difficult to take a steady view of anything the organisation might say. Even if it issued a declaration of surrender, disarmament and demobilisation there would be many who would still say: "It's a trap."
But any objective view of its Easter declaration - printed in full on this page - indicates that, whatever its long-term plans, the IRA is not on the brink of returning to its armed campaign. Media reports from time to time suggest that a return to conflict is imminent, but these should be balanced against the equal number of media stories which suggest that the organisation is about to decommission weapons.
"The IRA wants to see a permanent peace in this country", declares P. O'Neill, traditional signatory of such declarations, in the Easter statement released yesterday morning. Pointing out that there have been two cease-fires over the last five years, he says that these underline the IRA's "definitive" commitment to the success of the democratic process. He also notes that "IRA guns are silent".
Unlike Sinn Fein, the IRA has not committed itself to the Belfast Agreement, but refers to it as "a significant development" and points out that it has "waited patiently for evidence of its potential to deliver tangible progress".
While the many critics and enemies of the organisation would say that the IRA has a nerve to claim that there has been no "tangible progress", in view of the release of prisoners in particular, others would read this passage as indicating a fairly measured approach to the political situation.
There is no sense here of a threat being conveyed: give us our Sinn Fein ministers or we're back to war. Any such threat would probably backfire anyway by forcing a coalition of constitutional parties and the two governments against attempts to undermine democracy.
The chief warning note contained in the statement is the reference to the "year-long siege" of the Garvaghy Road, continuing loyalist attacks "at critical points" as well as "continuing evidence of collusion". Republican sources have expressed grave concern at the prospect of tens of thousands of Orangemen massing at Drumcree this year.
The absence of any reference to decommissioning in the statement should not be read as a softening of the IRA's position, republican sources said, but was rather due to the fact that any such reference would have been used as an excuse to interpret the overall content of the statement as hardline.
While there was much political activity yesterday and last night, republican sources were gloomy about the trend of events. They said that there was no hope if the focus remained on a concrete decommissioning gesture. That issue was dealt with in the Belfast Agreement and - as is well known - the republican interpretation of that document precludes a decommissioning "event" as a precondition for entry to government.
Dublin's stance on decommissioning continues to be a source of quiet irritation and even some disbelief to republicans: "They galloped faster than the Brits up that alley." As a result, some of the basis for the peace process was weakened.
But there was a much more benign attitude towards Dublin in yesterday's Daily Telegraph interview with David Trimble. He claimed that the republicans thought they could "bluster" their way out of decommissioning but "got an awful surprise when they discovered that the Irish Government weren't going to let them get away with it".
In the overall scheme of things yesterday, the IRA statement did not generate any dramatic changes or shifts of position. Neutral observers said that it had not done any harm and its relatively moderate tone had probably had a positive effect on the situation.
A meeting at Stormont of Ulster Unionist Assembly members did not go well for the leadership, sources said. The Assembly group is meant to be more docile than the party at large, but even they were nervous about the leadership agreeing the wrong kind of deal.
The early departure of Mr Tony Blair led to an immediate unionist "spin" that the talks were to be adjourned for a week, possibly longer, but that turned out to be wishful thinking when the news broke in the afternoon that the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach were heading back to Belfast.
Meanwhile, Mr Trimble - as always - continued to play his cards close to his chest. There were many outside the DUP who echoed, for different reasons, the Rev Ian Paisley's call for Mr Trimble to declare his "bottom line" on decommissioning.
As evening closed in, there were reports that a large contingent of loyalists would be massing at the gates of Hillsborough Castle. Inside, the settlement efforts continued. Mr Ahern dropped a tantalising hint when he said in the morning: "Surely we should not lose out because two of the parties could not agree on times and dates?"
At the end of the day it seemed to be a question of who was going to be isolated politically, Sinn Fein or the unionists.
The initial indications last night were that Sinn Fein was in the greatest danger. If Mr Trimble agreed to take the risk of forming the executive, including Sinn Fein ministers, on the understanding that decommissioning would take place in a fortnight and there was no IRA gesture forthcoming, Mr Adams and his friends would be landed with the blame.
The UUP leader could say he had tried, he had made the leap of faith, but the "Shinners" had let him down. In this scenario, the Prime Minister, the Taoiseach, the SDLP and the entire establishment would be ranged against republicans, who would then be faced with the choice of decommissioning and facing a damaging split or holding on to the guns and becoming political pariahs once more.
There was still some hope that the political genius of Bertie Ahern might find some way for both sides to compromise without losing face. Tough business, making peace.