Talks in Saudi Arabia: How the US and Russia are shaping the agenda to end the war in Ukraine

The process of ending the war in Ukraine, which everyone has been waiting for so long, has entered a new phase. The official meeting between the US and Russian delegations in Riyadh was the first real step in trying to reach a political settlement. After years of fighting that exhausted both sides and changed the geopolitical balance of the world, the major players sat down at the negotiating table for the first time, showing their willingness to discuss the terms of ending the war.

Saudi Arabia became the platform where the first steps towards a possible truce were taken. What previously seemed unreal is now beginning to take on clear contours. Whether this process will lead to a real end to the war is an open question. Ukraine and the world are closely following the dynamics of events, realizing that the process has been launched and these negotiations can determine the future not only of the country, but also of the entire global security system.

US-Russia negotiations: a big game around Ukraine

The negotiations between the United States and Russia, which took place on February 18 in Saudi Arabia, became a key moment in international politics and one of the most discussed events in recent weeks, as for the first time during the full-scale war, the two major world powers sat down to discuss options for ending it. This was the result of a telephone conversation between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, which launched a new phase of diplomatic maneuvers. The meeting lasted 4.5 hours, and as a result, both sides made statements that allow us to talk about a certain level of mutual understanding between Washington and Moscow. Despite the fact that specific decisions regarding Ukraine have not been made, the very atmosphere of the negotiations, readiness for further consultations and discussion of key issues indicate that the process has been launched, and subsequent meetings may have more serious consequences.

US President Donald Trump said after the negotiations that he was satisfied with their results, they gave him “much more confidence” in the possibility of ending hostilities in Ukraine. He emphasized that the main focus of the discussion was on two options for ending the war: a ceasefire or the signing of a full-fledged peace agreement. According to him, the United States is interested in achieving both goals, but the first priority is the cease-fire effort. The very fact that Trump openly talks about such options for the development of events shows that the White House is ready for more active intervention in the process of settling the war. At the same time, his statements about “much more confidence” after the conversation with the Russian side raise questions about what signals were given during the negotiations that could have so positively influenced his assessment of the situation.

Trump’s statement that Ukraine could have avoided the war, and the conflict should have ended three years ago, was also indicative. He directly said that the war might not have happened if the Ukrainian authorities had acted differently, and that three years ago he could have concluded an agreement that would have preserved the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Such a comment is in fact a criticism of official Kyiv and signals that the White House is preparing public opinion for possible concessions and concluding an agreement as soon as possible, even if it will not be entirely beneficial to Kyiv.

The Russian side, through Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, also gave a positive assessment of the talks, saying that the US began to “understand Russia’s position better” and that the talks between the two countries were aimed at improving relations and, according to him, were “quite successfully”. This is a key signal that the Kremlin sees the possibility of its influence in the diplomatic process. He said that as soon as the US decides on a permanent representative for further negotiations, Moscow will do the same, which means creating a formal mechanism for bilateral negotiations on a systemic basis. This is important, because this rhetoric shows that Washington and Moscow are gradually forming a new bilateral diplomatic format in which the future of Ukraine can be decided without its direct participation. This development is beneficial to the Kremlin, as it gives it the opportunity to negotiate on an equal footing with the US, and not in the “Moscow-Kyiv-West” format.

In addition, Lavrov emphasized that during the negotiations, the so-called “Kellogg plan”, which provided for territorial concessions from Russia, was refuted. He noted that this idea, which was previously voiced by the special representative of the US President Keith Kellogg at the Munich Security Conference, was not even raised during the meeting in Riyadh. This confirms that the Kremlin has no intention of making any territorial concessions within the framework of a peace settlement. There is also a high probability that Kellogg will not participate in the negotiations.

Separately, Russia put forward another important demand – the annulment of the decision of the Bucharest NATO summit in 2008, at which Ukraine was promised membership in the Alliance without specifying specific terms. This is one of the main strategic goals of the Kremlin, because the cancellation of this decision means that NATO officially recognizes Ukraine as out of its future plans. Refusal of this prospect will be a serious defeat for Kyiv and, at the same time, a great diplomatic success for Moscow.

Another important moment of the negotiations was Lavrov’s statement that the Kremlin is categorically against any NATO peacekeeping mission, including European countries. This means that Moscow seeks to control any future security settlement mechanism and will not allow the West to be involved in military guarantees for Ukraine.

At the same time, the day before, Donald Trump directly stated that the US will not send its troops to ensure security in Ukraine, but if Europe is ready to do so, the White House will not object. This once again confirms that Washington is moving in the same direction as the Russian Federation and seeks to minimize its direct military involvement, shifting the responsibility to European allies. At the same time, the Kremlin responded categorically against any NATO peacekeeping mission, including European countries. This means that even if a peacekeeping format is considered as part of a possible deal, Russia will demand that Western countries not participate in it, making the prospects for such a scenario much more difficult.

One of the most interesting moments of the negotiations was Russia’s position on the elections in Ukraine. Trump confirmed that Moscow insists on their holding, calling it an “objective situation.”

“Ukraine is under martial law all the time, and the approval rating of the leader of this country has already fallen to 4%. It is not Russia telling Ukraine that elections are necessary, this is an objective situation.” he said.

That is, Trump directly stated that Russia is not imposing elections on Ukraine, but only stating the fact that they must take place. This is another element of political pressure that benefits the Kremlin, as any discussion about elections in the midst of a war could undermine the legitimacy of the Ukrainian government and complicate Kyiv’s negotiating position.

One more important point should be noted. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said after these negotiations that in the event of a real settlement of the war, sanctions will have to be lifted.

“The West will have to cancel sanctions against Russia in the event of a settlement of the Ukrainian conflict. The EU should also participate in the negotiations regarding Ukraine, because it was he who introduced these sanctions.” Rubio said.

This thesis clearly demonstrates that the issue of economic restrictions against Moscow is part of the overall negotiating package. This raises serious concerns in Kyiv and European allies, since sanctions were considered the main lever of pressure on Russia and a means of deterring its further aggressive actions.

An important issue during the meeting in Riyadh was the possible lifting of sanctions against Russia in the event of a peace agreement. US Secretary of State Mark Rubio bluntly stated that in the event of a settlement of the war, “the West will have to review the sanctions regime”, as any new agreement between the US and Russia would involve a gradual restoration of economic relations. According to him, the European Union should also take part in the negotiations, since it was he who introduced most of the sanctions restrictions against the Russian Federation. The issue is extremely sensitive for Ukraine and its allies in Europe, as lifting sanctions without real guarantees for Kyiv would mean the Kremlin would make concessions without tough conditions.

Mark Rubio also stated that the United States is actively consulting with Western allies regarding the further strategy for settling the war in Ukraine. He emphasized that any decision will not be made without the participation of European partners and that the US will not act alone in this matter. His words were confirmed by Trump’s aide Michael Waltz, who emphasized that no ally would be left out and all key international players would participate in the negotiations.

Separately, Marco Rubio confirmed that an agreement has already been reached between Washington and Moscow to restore the previous number of embassies in the US and Russia. This is the first official step towards the normalization of diplomatic relations between the two countries, which indicates a change in the general tone of interaction between the White House and the Kremlin.

The next rounds of talks between the US and Russia will touch on the issues of territories and security guarantees, which are key to any possible political settlement. This means that, in addition to a temporary ceasefire, the parties will discuss long-term security mechanisms, as well as the status of the occupied territories. It is this question that causes the greatest concern, since the Kremlin has repeatedly stated that it considers the occupied regions of Ukraine as an “integral part of Russia” and is not ready to make concessions.

The US, for its part, has said that it seeks a final, not a temporary, solution to the war. Trump emphasized that his goal is to end the war justly and prevent its recurrence. This may mean that Washington is considering the possibility of creating new international guarantees for Ukraine, which should prevent future conflicts. At the same time, it is not clear how strong these guarantees will be and whether they will include real mechanisms to deter Russia in the event of a new round of aggression.

In addition, at the negotiations in Saudi Arabia, the American side confirmed its readiness to cooperate with Russia in the field of geopolitical interests and economic opportunities after the end of the war in Ukraine. For example, separate discussions were held on global energy security. This is important because any concessions by Washington in the energy sector could give the Kremlin additional resources to influence the market and European partners. Therefore, the negotiations were not limited to the military aspects of the conflict, but touched on a wider spectrum of relations between the United States and Russia, including global economic cooperation. In particular, the Russian Foreign Ministry officially confirmed that, following the negotiations in Riyadh, the parties laid the foundation for the restoration of relations between the two countries in various areas.

Both Washington and Moscow have confirmed that the negotiation process will be long and regular, as the consultation mechanism for Ukraine has been officially approved. This indicates that the two countries are forming a new format of dialogue, which can continue in parallel with hostilities and, in the future, become the basis for a future political agreement.

Thus, the results of the negotiations in Riyadh give a clear signal: the process of settling the war is gaining momentum, but its scenario is still far from defined. The USA and Russia have laid the groundwork for the restoration of relations between the two countries in various areas, have demonstrated a willingness to negotiate, and are resolving their interests, but the key question remains open – on what terms and with what consequences for Ukraine.

Keith Kellogg’s visit to Kyiv: what it means

The next stage in the search for a diplomatic solution to the war was the visit to Kyiv of the special representative of the US president for Ukraine and Russia, Keith Kellogg. His arrival on February 19 came amid a new wave of political upheaval that began after talks between the US and Russia in Saudi Arabia.

The appointment of Kellogg as a special representative was not accidental – he is a retired general and a person close to Trump, who directly influences the formation of Washington’s policy on war. His mission in Kyiv became part of a large-scale process aimed at offering Ukraine a specific scenario for the end of the war in the coming weeks or even days.

Kellogg’s first words at the train station were:

“This is a chance to conduct good potential negotiations. We will listen. We are ready to provide the necessary. We understand the need for security guarantees. Part of my mission is to listen. Then I will return to the United States, I will talk to President Trump to make sure that we understand everything correctly.” he said.

The phrase “willingness to provide the necessary” may indicate that the US is considering options not only for security guarantees, but also for a certain package of conditions that could become part of a potential peace agreement.

Kellogg also repeated Trump’s thesis that the war would not have started if he had remained president in 2022. This argument is political and reflects the internal struggle in the US for control over the foreign policy course towards Ukraine.

“He (Trump – ed.) understands that people are suffering, he understands the destruction. And we want it to end.” – he added.

This rhetoric shows that the Trump administration, even before officially returning to power, is eager to mark its role as a key moderator in the peace-seeking process.

It should be noted that before his visit to Kyiv, Kellogg visited Poland, where he met with President Andrzej Duda. Warsaw is one of the staunchest supporters of increased aid to Ukraine, so this meeting may indicate that the US wants to win the support of its allies in the EU before coming out with a concrete proposal.

In addition, on February 15, Kellogg stated that he intended to prepare proposals for ending the war within “days and weeks.” This indicates the high level of urgency with which Washington is trying to advance the negotiation process.

Is there pressure on Ukraine and Zelensky’s latest statements

Officially, the USA declares that it will not «impose a peace agreement” on Ukraine, but the nature of the meetings and the statements of American representatives indicate that Kyiv will be offered a concrete plan with serious diplomatic and political support. After the talks in Saudi Arabia, the US State Department said that the war must end with a solution that is “stable and acceptable to all parties”. In diplomatic language, this formula is often used as a veiled signal to find compromises. Kellogg in Kyiv does not speak directly about possible concessions, but his words about “necessary security guarantees” may indicate that Washington is considering the possibility of some new agreements regarding the future of Ukraine.

In turn, in light of recent events, President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy warns of the danger of hasty agreements with Russia, which could lead to chaos similar to the events in Afghanistan in 2021. In an interview with the German TV channel ARD, published on February 17, he emphasized that the reckless withdrawal of the allies and the premature termination of the war without adequate guarantees could turn into a disaster for Ukraine and regional security as a whole. Zelensky directly compared the current situation with the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, when after the chaotic withdrawal of the allies, the country instantly came under the control of the Taliban. He emphasized that the West cannot allow the same scenario in Ukraine, when hasty concessions could lead to immediate revenge by Russia and the loss of all the gains made in the war.

His position is unequivocal: any decisions that involve the cessation of hostilities without clear guarantees of Ukraine’s security and territorial integrity are unacceptable. The president clearly stated that Kyiv will not agree to any territorial concessions. He noted that the Americans need to better understand all legal aspects of the situation, as Ukraine will never recognize the annexation of its lands and will continue to fight for their return.

At the same time, the President categorically rejected the idea of ​​a negotiation process, within the framework of which Kyiv would have to make preliminary concessions to start a dialogue. First of all, this concerns the issue of Ukraine’s accession to NATO. Zelensky emphasized that if the West tries to exclude the prospect of Ukraine’s membership in the Alliance from the negotiation agenda, it will mean that the partners are more concerned about their own comfort than the real security of Ukraine. He reminded that Russia has always raised this very issue as a condition for ending the war, and therefore any concessions in this direction will mean that the Kremlin is dictating its terms again.

Zelenskyi also emphasized that negotiations without the direct participation of Kyiv are a political absurdity, because it is Ukraine that is the party to the war, not the United States or other world players.

The president paid special attention to the latest statements from Washington. In his opinion, American politicians are increasingly trying to “find common ground” with the Kremlin in order to demonstrate quick diplomatic success.

“The USA is saying things today that are very pleasing to Putin. I think this is the crux of the matter. Because they want to please him. Do you know why? To meet each other and achieve quick success.” – said Zelensky.

In fact, he hinted that the White House is considering a deal that would benefit Russia but not necessarily guarantee Ukraine’s security. Zelensky emphasized that the ceasefire on Moscow’s terms cannot be considered a diplomatic success – it is only a temporary pause that will give Putin the opportunity to regroup the troops and prepare for a new offensive.

An important detail is that Zelenskyy emphasized separately: if international peacekeepers are introduced to Ukraine, they must include the US military. This will be a major deterrent for Russia and a clear signal that the West is not ready to back down.

At the same time, Volodymyr Zelensky criticized the policy of the US and the administration of Donald Trump, accusing them of facilitating the exit of Russia and Putin from international isolation. In his opinion, Washington’s actions became a signal for the Kremlin that international pressure is weakening, and this only strengthens Russia’s confidence in its actions.

In addition, he also expressed surprise that three years after the start of a full-scale war, the US continues to call the Russian invasion a “conflict” and shows some loyalty to Moscow. Zelensky believes that in this way they are trying to soften the perception of Russian aggression. At the same time, he emphasized that this is not the first time he has encountered such a policy of international partners. Zelensky also stated that Trump was misinformed about his low rating in the light of talks about the elections in Ukraine, while at the same time the talks in Saudi Arabia did not raise the issue of shelling our country or the exchange of prisoners of war.

What conclusions can be drawn in the light of these events

Zelenskyi’s statements against the background of the first official talks between the US and Russia in Saudi Arabia look like a direct signal of dissatisfaction and mistrust of what is happening behind closed doors without Ukraine. His criticism of hasty agreements and comparisons with Afghanistan are actually a warning that any ceasefire without security guarantees could become a strategic trap for Ukraine.

Criticism of Trump is particularly revealing – Zelensky not only accuses the American administration of being too flexible towards the Kremlin, but also hints that Trump either does not understand the scale of the threat or is deliberately playing in the interests of Moscow. He makes it clear that if the US comes to an agreement with Putin, perceiving the war as a “conflict” and not as Russian aggression, it will mean a complete revision of the international approach to war.

The position of Volodymyr Zelenskyi is an attempt to anticipate a possible diplomatic scenario where Ukraine may be faced with the fact of a ready-made agreement. Zelensky is actually voicing what is not being said officially in Kyiv: the negotiations between the US and the Russian Federation are a dangerous signal that the balance of power in the issue of war is beginning to shift, and Ukraine must fight not only with Russia, but also for its own place in these negotiations.

The meeting in Saudi Arabia showed that the process of political settlement of the war has been launched, and now the main question is at what cost. Negotiations between the US and Russia have confirmed that Washington and Moscow are ready to seek a compromise option to end the war, even if it means revising terms in favor of the Kremlin. At the same time, Ukraine, which was actually eliminated from the first round of discussions, risks finding itself in a situation where key decisions will be made without it.

Despite the US diplomatic rhetoric of support for Kyiv, the actual resumption of contacts between them and the Russian Federation, discussion of the lifting of sanctions and agreements on further consultations point to an attempt to lay the foundation for a new political and economic agreement beneficial to them. At the same time, Moscow is trying to use this process to legitimize its territorial conquests, and Washington is trying to use it for a quick diplomatic settlement that will allow it to shift attention to its internal problems.

This is no longer a question of military support for Ukraine, but a new phase in which the issue of war and peace becomes the subject of strategic bargaining between major players. In this situation, Kyiv will have to fight not only on the battlefield, but also for its right to remain a key subject of this process. Any decision made without Ukraine will set a dangerous precedent that will determine the rules of the game in world politics for decades to come.

The formula for ending the war, which the USA and the Russian Federation are trying to work out in the negotiations, is still far from its final form, but the main thing is already clear: the conflict is entering the final phase, and what this outcome will be will depend not only on Kyiv, but also on how far Washington is willing to go in compromising with the Kremlin.

Oksana Ishchenko