THE geopolitical landscape surrounding Ukraine is undergoing a significant transformation, highlighted by recent high-level diplomatic engagements between the United States and Russia in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
These discussions, led by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, represent the most extensive US-Russia negotiations since the onset of the Ukraine conflict in 2022.
Notably, the absence of Ukrainian and European representatives from these talks has sparked considerable debate regarding the implications for Ukraine’s sovereignty and the broader international order.
The decision to hold bilateral talks in Riyadh underscores Saudi Arabia’s emerging role as a mediator in global conflicts.
However, the exclusion of Ukraine from discussions directly concerning its future has drawn sharp criticism.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has firmly stated that any decisions made without Ukraine’s involvement are unacceptable, a sentiment echoed by German Chancellor, Olaf Scholz, who emphasized that “there must be no decision over the heads of Ukraine.
” This situation raises critical questions about the agency of states directly affected by such conflicts and the processes by which international diplomatic decisions are made.
The sidelining of European states in resolving the Ukrainian crisis marks a notable shift in geopolitical dynamics.
Historically, Europe has played a central role in mediating regional conflicts through frameworks like the Normandy Format and the Minsk agreements.
The current US-Russia bilateral approach suggests a diminishing influence of European powers in security matters directly impacting their continent.
This development could prompt Europe to reassess its strategic autonomy and its capacity to safeguard its interests independently of the United States.
Complicating the situation further, President Donald Trump has criticized President Zelensky, referring to him as a “dictator without elections.
” Trump’s remarks imply that Ukraine should expedite negotiations to prevent further destruction, suggesting that the ongoing conflict might serve the political interests of its leadership more than those of its populace.
These statements have not only caused unease in Kyiv but have also resonated positively in Moscow, with Russian officials praising Trump’s understanding of Russia’s position.
Such dynamics underscore the complex interplay of international narratives and their potential impact on conflict resolution efforts.
For the past three years, European diplomatic efforts have struggled to yield a resolution to the war in Ukraine.
The current US-Russia bilateral engagement offers a renewed opportunity for de-escalation, fostering dialogue that could pave the way for a sustainable settlement.
This diplomatic initiative prioritizes strategic negotiation over confrontation, potentially restoring stability in Eastern Europe.
If successful, it could reshape global power dynamics, demonstrating that great-power diplomacy remains essential in addressing complex conflicts where regional actors have faced challenges.
However, the exclusion of Ukraine and its European allies from the Riyadh talks has prompted broader geopolitical concerns.
European leaders have expressed unease over being left out of discussions that significantly affect regional security.
The potential for the US to make decisions regarding Ukraine’s future without European input could exacerbate rifts within the transatlantic alliance.
This situation might compel Europe to rethink its defence and foreign policy strategies, possibly moving towards greater strategic independence from the US.
The absence of Europe from the talks in Riyadh also signals a potential decline in the influence of European diplomacy.
The decision of the US and Russia to engage bilaterally, without European representation, might reflect a broader strategic recalibration where Europe’s role is diminished.
This shift could prompt European states to strengthen their security frameworks, potentially accelerating discussions around a unified European defence mechanism.
While the exclusion of Ukrainian and European representatives has sparked criticism, this bilateral engagement between the US and Russia demonstrates a pragmatic shift towards direct dialogue between two of the world’s most influential powers.
The willingness of Washington and Moscow to explore potential solutions indicates a move away from the stagnation of recent years, where diplomatic inertia and geopolitical posturing often overshadowed tangible progress.
This development could lead to innovative solutions that traditional European frameworks have struggled to produce, offering a fresh perspective on conflict resolution and international diplomacy.
It is essential to recognize that successful US-Russia talks could set a precedent for resolving other protracted conflicts through open channels of communication.
A direct line of negotiation reduces the risks associated with proxy conflicts and minimizes the potential for miscommunication that could escalate into broader hostilities.
If managed thoughtfully, this engagement might not only benefit Ukraine by potentially accelerating a peaceful settlement but also bolster global stability by showcasing how great powers can collaborate, even amidst deep-seated differences.
The international community, including Europe, could eventually play a supportive role in reinforcing and implementing the outcomes of these talks, helping to craft balanced agreements that respect national sovereignties while promoting long-term peace.
—The writer is PhD Scholar International Relations, based in Islamabad.
(guleayeshabhatti@gmail.com)
