Every war reaches a conclusion, even if the form it takes can be elusive. Historically, a formal treaty is necessary, stipulating the terms under which hostilities cease and detailing the framework for the post-war landscape. This necessity seems distant for Ukraine. Yet, the United States is actively pursuing a pathway to resolution, applying intense pressure to facilitate negotiations with the aggressor.
The U.S. has framed its recent discussions with Russia as a crucial first step in establishing a peace agreement to put an end to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. The rationale is clear: the war appears to be at a standstill, prompting the need for an intervention that shifts the dynamics of the situation.
In a noteworthy exchange, Russia has extended a curious invitation to Donald Trump, suggesting he might act as a mediator with President Vladimir Putin. This proposal hints at the potential for lucrative opportunities for American enterprises operating in Russia post-conflict, an indication that the existing sanctions are taking a toll as the Kremlin seeks their removal.
Remarkably, both parties assert that Ukraine will play a role in these discussions, though it seems poised to function primarily as an observer rather than an equal partner.
(L to R) Steve Witkoff, Marco Rubio, Mike Waltz, Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan al-Saud, National Security Advisor Mosaad bin Mohammad al-Aiban, Yuri Ushakov, and Sergei Lavrov
Amidst these developments, the U.S. and Russia have agreed to assemble negotiating teams tasked with exploring the contours of a potential peace agreement. However, European nations, who have been heavily affected by the consequences of the war—from supporting the Ukrainian government to maintaining social stability—have received little more than token acknowledgment from both the American and Russian sides.
The tone of the negotiations feels decidedly transactional, marked by a clear quid pro quo. Consider the implications: a potential “land for peace” arrangement could pave the way for inclusion in international commerce, all orchestrated by global powers in a local dispute. While such a resolution might seem straightforward at a glance, seasoned observers caution against such optimism.
Voices of experience echo warnings about this approach. John Bolton, a former National Security Advisor, and Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, who served in an official capacity during the earlier stages of the conflict, both voice concerns over the message being sent. Vindman articulated a compelling point: the mere fact that these discussions took place could enhance Russian morale while sending a dispiriting signal to Ukraine. In his view, this could be interpreted as a reward for Russia’s militaristic pursuits, an affront to genuine diplomatic efforts.
While some may believe that these dialogues could yield positive results, others contend that if Trump fails to achieve tangible outcomes swiftly, he might pivot toward a stronger support stance for Ukraine and intensify pressure on Russia.
Countries along the eastern flank of the EU, armed with extensive historical experience in dealing with Russia, raise alarms about the seemingly peripheral role assigned to Ukraine in these negotiations.
Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s long-serving foreign minister, leads their delegation, bringing more than two decades of diplomatic experience. On the U.S. side stands Marco Rubio—a relative newcomer to his post, only recently stepping into this complex arena.
Interestingly, Kiril Dimitriev heads the Russian negotiating team. With an impressive background that includes education from Harvard and work at Goldman Sachs, he now oversees Russia’s Sovereign Wealth Fund. His connections extend into the Middle East, with ties to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, facilitating a dialogue between key stakeholders, including billionaire property mogul Steve Witkoff, who acts as the U.S. administration’s Middle East envoy.
They have recently collaborated on matters quite distinct from international negotiations—a notable instance being the successful advocacy for the release of American teacher Marc Fogel from Russian imprisonment, a move that perhaps underscores the intricate relationship weaving through these discussions.
As the conflict drags on and positions harden, the prospect of a simplistic resolution remains precarious. The opening salvos from both Russia and the U.S. echo a desire for lucrative opportunities post-war, with Dimitriev estimating American corporate losses during their withdrawal from Russia at around $300 billion. The urgency weighs heavily on industries, particularly oil and gas sectors, clamoring for strategies that might restore lost investments.
In a curious twist, Trump dispatched Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant to Kyiv, hinting at a potential deal that would grant the U.S. ownership rights over a significant portion of Ukraine’s rare mineral and metal deposits—assets in high demand to fuel the green energy transition, particularly lithium and graphite. In strategically pivotal regions currently occupied by Russian forces, these resources could very well become bargaining chips in the broader negotiation landscape.
Rumors persist that Trump may be eyeing a meeting with Putin next month, although the details of such a summit remain nebulous. Should this rendezvous materialize, it would represent a significant diplomatic milestone for Putin, who has found himself increasingly isolated since the onset of military aggression against Ukraine.
While discussions unfold behind closed doors in Saudi Arabia, Ukraine’s own President Volodymyr Zelensky engages with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Ankara. Having previously hosted peace talks in 2022, Turkey reiterates its support for Ukraine’s territorial integrity, suggesting itself as a potential neutral ground for future negotiations involving all sides.
Throughout this intricate tapestry of diplomacy, the nuances of power dynamics shift constantly. Zelensky’s decision to withdraw from participating in the talks in Saudi Arabia was strategic; he aimed to avoid perceptions of “parallel negotiations” that might undermine Ukraine’s position.
Whether it’s the proposition of EU, British, and Turkish troops stationed in Ukraine as part of security guarantees or the contentious discussion around elections within the country—every detail warrants scrutiny. The call from Russia for elections, often viewed with suspicion by Ukrainian commentators, suggests a tactic for political leveraging rather than genuine enthusiasm for democratic processes.
Amidst the uncertainty, Rubio aptly remarked that these conversations signify merely an initial step on a potentially arduous path ahead. Yet, with shifting geopolitical currents and the imminent arrival of spring’s battle-ready conditions, patience may soon wear thin in Washington.
Edited By Ali Musa
Axadle Times International – Monitoring
