From Munich to Riyadh: The 72 Hours That Redrew the Global Chessboard

Only three days have passed since the Munich Security Conference, yet it feels as though weeks' worth of geopolitical shifts have been crammed into these 48 hours. The U.S. signaled, in no uncertain terms, that it was charting a new course—one that leaves Europe scrambling for relevance and redefines Washington’s approach to global power dynamics.

It started with a single phone call. President Trump spoke to President Putin, rekindling direct engagement between Washington and Moscow for the first time since 2022. The call, described by the White House as "constructive and forward-looking," paved the way for an even bigger move—a high-stakes diplomatic meeting in Riyadh. Hours after U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, and Special Envoy Steve Witkoff landed in the Saudi capital, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov followed, setting the stage for the most consequential U.S.-Russia talks in years.

Notably absent? Europe and Ukraine.

The realization that Washington had gone behind their backs sent shockwaves through the European establishment. In a hurried response, French President Macron convened an emergency summit in Paris, bringing together key European leaders to assess the fallout. The meeting, hastily organized and narrow in participation, was less a strategy session and more a reaction to Europe’s sudden marginalization.

Meanwhile, as Washington and Moscow quietly explored avenues for reconciliation in Riyadh, Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy took to the skies. His first stop: Abu Dhabi, where he met with the Emirati President, securing economic agreements and humanitarian support. From there, he flew to Ankara, where he sought reassurances from the Turkish President, a leader who has carefully balanced ties between Kyiv and Moscow.

The fact that Saudi Arabia and the UAE were hosting pivotal diplomatic engagements—while Europe was scrambling for direction in Paris—underscored a stark reality: The old transatlantic-centric world order is fading, and new power centers are stepping in to fill the void.

These events are not isolated moments; they are interwoven strands of a larger, unfolding transformation. To understand what is happening—and where it might lead—it is crucial to examine these events together, tracing the fault lines of divergence, the points of convergence, and the forces reshaping global diplomacy in real time.

The Riyadh Meeting: A Calculated Power Play

Choosing Riyadh as the venue for the first U.S.-Russia talks since 2022 was not incidental—it was a carefully calculated move that served the interests of all parties involved. For Washington, Saudi Arabia provided a neutral but strategically valuable setting. It remains a key U.S. security partner while also maintaining close ties with Moscow, offering the kind of diplomatic flexibility that a Western venue could not. Holding the talks in Riyadh also underscored Washington’s intentional shift away from Europe, a clear indication that the U.S. no longer views Brussels as an essential player in shaping post-war diplomacy.

For Russia, the choice of Riyadh was equally beneficial. Saudi Arabia had already established itself as a reliable intermediary, having facilitated prisoner swaps between Moscow and Kyiv. Unlike European capitals, where Russia faces hostility and sanctions, Riyadh offered a platform for diplomatic reintegration without the baggage of Western ideological opposition. The location also reinforced Russia’s broader message: European nations have lost their significance in U.S.-Russia relations. The fact that Moscow’s officials sat across from their American counterparts on neutral Saudi soil, rather than in a European venue, drove this point home.

Saudi Arabia, in turn, saw an opportunity to position itself as a major global diplomatic power, cementing its reputation as a trusted broker between adversaries. By hosting the first high-level U.S.-Russia meeting in years, it reinforced its growing influence—not just regionally but globally. The possibility of hosting a future Trump-Putin summit in Riyadh would only further solidify this new role, establishing the Kingdom as a serious alternative to traditional Western diplomatic centers.

Outcomes: Beyond Ukraine

Less than a week after President Trump’s phone call with Vladimir Putin, the two governments moved swiftly to translate words into action. The speed at which these talks were arranged suggested a far greater strategic purpose than finding a resolution on Ukraine. While the war provided the official justification for the meeting, the true focus extended beyond the battlefield. For Washington, this was about recalibrating its global strategy, shifting away from treating Russia as an adversary and instead positioning Moscow as a potential counterweight to China. For Russia, the meeting offered a way to break out of diplomatic isolation and establish new lines of engagement with Washington, independent of European influence.

One of the most telling outcomes was the agreement to restaff embassies, restoring diplomatic missions to pre-war levels. This was a move that signaled long-term engagement rather than a temporary discussion on Ukraine. The Trump administration’s strategic positioning has identified China—not Russia—as the primary geopolitical challenge, and to that end, pulling Moscow out of Beijing’s orbit is seen as a greater priority than continuing to isolate it. The move also benefits Russia, which has grown increasingly dependent on China both economically and politically since the war began. A thaw in U.S.-Russia relations offers Moscow a chance to rebalance, ensuring it does not become overly reliant on Beijing.

Beyond diplomacy, the agreement to establish a high-level negotiation team marked the beginning of a more structured engagement between Washington and Moscow on Ukraine. Tasked with negotiating an end to the war, this team will also be expected to handle sensitive discussions on territorial settlements, and security guarantees, to ensure lasting peace rather than a temporary ceasefire. The decision to form these teams for bilateral negotiations, rather than as part of a broader NATO or Euro-American bloc further reinforced the sidelining of Europe in future negotiations.

Geopolitical Cooperation and Economic Cooperation

Moving at a rapid pace, the meeting did not wait for the restaffing of the embassies to engage on geopolitical and economic issues. The inclusion of Kirill Dmitriev, head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), in the Russian delegation was a key indicator that economic re-engagement was already on the table. Had Ukraine been the core priority, restaffing embassies and resuming diplomatic dialogue on geopolitical issues and economic interests would have been a later stage, after some agreement had been reached on Ukraine. Yet the discussions already touched on potential areas of cooperation including the Arctic, an issue that has been a central concern for the Trump administration since his inauguration.

This prioritization of economic engagement and economic cooperation over immediate war resolution confirms that both sides are looking beyond Ukraine and toward realigning strategic interests for the long term. The war remains a hurdle to be managed, but it is not the defining feature of U.S.-Russia relations moving forward.

The Message: A New Geopolitical Order

The optics of the meeting were as important as its content. By holding the talks in Riyadh instead of a traditional Western diplomatic hub, Washington signaled that it is no longer bound by old alliances or past commitments. Europe was neither consulted nor included, sending an unmistakable message: the U.S. sees Russia—not Europe—as the more effective strategic partner in reshaping the global order and countering China. Russia, in turn, took the opportunity to emphasize that European involvement is neither necessary nor welcome. Lavrov openly dismissed European participation in peace talks, painting Brussels as an obstacle rather than a facilitator.

For NATO, the implications are stark. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s suggestion of European troops in Ukraine under NATO or EU banners was swiftly rejected by Russia, which continues to see NATO expansion in Ukraine as a direct threat. The absence of NATO’s leadership in Riyadh further illustrates how Washington and Moscow are looking to set the terms of engagement on through bilateral channels, rather than through multilateral institutions.

The most consequential takeaway, however, is the clear shift in the balance of global diplomatic power. With Saudi Arabia positioning itself as a new international mediator, with Russia finding a path to re-engagement outside of Europe, and with the U.S. reorienting its foreign policy toward China, the traditional structures of global diplomacy are being reshaped. The Riyadh meeting was not just a discussion about war—it was a prelude to a new geopolitical order, one where old alliances are being redefined.

Europe’s Scramble in Paris: A Reactive, Fractured Response

While Washington and Moscow moved swiftly and decisively in Riyadh, Europe found itself caught off guard. French President Emmanuel Macron, alarmed by the sidelining of Europe from U.S.-Russia discussions, hastily convened an emergency meeting in Paris, bringing together leaders from Germany, the UK, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, and the President of the European Commission. The objective was clear: to reassert Europe’s relevance in discussions about Ukraine’s future and push back against Washington’s unilateral pivot toward Moscow. Yet, instead of a display of European strength and unity, the Paris meeting exposed divisions, uncertainty, and a reactive approach—a stark contrast to the strategic clarity displayed in Riyadh.

The Meeting: A Symbol of European Disarray

Macron’s invitation was not one of strategic foresight but of desperation. The realization that the U.S. had unilaterally engaged with Russia—without consulting its European allies—sent shockwaves through European capitals. The Paris summit was, at its core, an attempt to salvage European influence, but it was reactive rather than proactive, displaying the very weakness that had led to Europe’s exclusion in the first place.

During the discussions, leaders reaffirmed their unwavering support for Ukraine, insisting that no peace deal could be legitimate without European and Ukrainian involvement. They stressed the need for security guarantees from Russia, along with increased European defense spending to bolster their position. However, beyond reiterating well-worn talking points, the meeting failed to produce a clear, unified European response.

The cracks in Europe’s position were immediately evident. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer suggested the possibility of European troops in Ukraine, only to be swiftly rebuffed by Germany and Spain, exposing disagreements on Europe’s role in the conflict’s resolution and aftermath. The lack of coordination and strategic vision stood in stark contrast to the deliberate and well-calculated messaging coming out of Riyadh.

Even the meeting’s participation list reflected inconsistency and confusion. Macron invited only select European leaders, excluding other key EU states. This exclusivity led to frustration among those who had been left out, with criticism coming from both those who favored a harder stance against Russia and those who preferred engagement over confrontation. Instead of presenting a unified European front, Macron had inadvertently deepened divisions within the bloc.

A Second Summit, An Even Bigger Mistake?

Recognizing that the first meeting had failed to project unity, Macron quickly announced a second summit held today in Paris, expanding participation to include additional European states and possibly Canada. Yet, this move only further highlighted the disorder within Europe’s ranks. Instead of fixing the problem, the need for a second emergency meeting confirmed that the first had been poorly planned and executed.

Even in its expanded format, the second summit failed to address the fundamental contradiction at the heart of Europe’s response: while complaining about being excluded from U.S.-Russia negotiations, the Paris meetings deliberately excluded many EU states from defining Europe’s own stance. Macron’s attempt to shape a European-led response to the U.S.-Russia pivot risked even greater internal fragmentation (deliberately omitting Hungary and Slovakia from the meeting due to their pro Russia stance).

The Messaging: A Stark Contrast with Riyadh

Optics matter in diplomacy, and the difference between Riyadh and Paris could not have been more pronounced. In Riyadh, Washington and Moscow met in a carefully coordinated, strategically timed discussion that was forward-looking and substantive. The talks sent a clear message to the world: the U.S. and Russia were reestablishing their diplomatic channels, and Europe was not a part of that conversation.

By contrast, Paris projected weakness and confusion. While the Riyadh meeting was about action, the Paris meeting was about reaction. While Washington and Moscow dictated terms, Europe demanded inclusion. Instead of adapting to the new geopolitical reality, European leaders spent their time reaffirming past commitments, failing to recognize that the dynamics of the war—and its resolution—had shifted dramatically.

Even Macron’s messaging during the summit was undercut by the irony of European disunity. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, in an attempt to sound resolute, quoted Trump’s own slogan when she stated that Ukraine needs "peace through strength." Yet, the very strength that Europe sought to project was nowhere to be found in Paris. Macron’s statement that Russia posed an existential threat to Europe between the emergency summits appear to be rooted in fear rather than reality.

Blindsided, But Should They Have Been?

Perhaps the most damning aspect of the Paris debacle was that none of this should have been a surprise. Trump had made it clear throughout his campaign that he would pursue direct engagement with Russia. His foreign policy views on NATO, Europe, and Ukraine had been transparent for years. Yet, when the moment arrived, European leaders reacted as though they had been caught off guard.

Rather than preparing for a shift in U.S. policy, Europe placed blind faith in the continuity of American support, assuming that the transatlantic alliance would remain unchanged even as Washington’s priorities were openly shifting. When that assumption proved false, Europe found itself scrambling for relevance, responding with reactive meetings rather than shaping events on its own terms.

The Paris meetings should have been a moment for Europe to recalibrate and forge a new strategic direction. Instead, they became a symbol of European frustration, division, and a failure to recognize the shifting balance of global power.

As Washington and Moscow looked ahead, Europe was left looking backward.

Zelenskyy’s Moves: Navigating Diplomatic Isolation

As the high-stakes talks in Riyadh and Paris unfolded without Ukrainian representation, President Zelenskyy embarked on a diplomatic tour of his own, seeking to reinforce Ukraine’s strategic and economic partnerships. His planned itinerary originally included a visit to Saudi Arabia on February 18, but in light of the U.S.-Russia meeting in Riyadh, he abruptly canceled. The optics of arriving in Saudi Arabia immediately after a discussion between Moscow and Washington—without Kyiv’s participation—would have risked projecting weakness rather than influence. Instead, Zelenskyy recalibrated, focusing on the UAE and Türkiye, two countries that have maintained delicate but impactful balancing acts between Russia, the U.S., and Europe.

Abu Dhabi: Economic Lifelines and Prisoner Exchanges

Zelenskyy’s visit to Abu Dhabi was primarily economic, but its symbolism ran deeper. The UAE has played an increasingly prominent role in global diplomacy, using its economic leverage and neutrality to mediate conflicts and facilitate humanitarian negotiations. For Ukraine, securing stronger economic ties with the Gulf was crucial, particularly as Western financial support for Kyiv faces growing uncertainty.

The centerpiece of the visit was the signing of a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA), aimed at expanding trade and investment flows between the two nations. Beyond economics, discussions also covered humanitarian assistance and the ongoing repatriation of Ukrainian captives held in Russia—an area where Abu Dhabi has proven to be an important mediator.

The visit’s timing, however, is just as important as its content. While Saudi Arabia was facilitating a historic U.S.-Russia dialogue, the UAE was hosting Zelenskyy and, just a day prior, Russian First Deputy Prime Minister. Moscow’s presence in Abu Dhabi, coinciding with the International Defense Exhibition (IDEX), underscored the UAE’s commitment to engagement with both sides of the conflict. Notably, Ukrainian defense manufacturers also participated in the event, highlighting the Emirates’ role as a venue for parallel but competing geopolitical engagements.

This convergence of events reflects a broader reality: Arab Gulf states are no longer passive bystanders in global affairs. Both Saudi Arabia and the UAE have emerged as diplomatic powerhouses, capable of facilitating negotiations, balancing rival powers, and influencing conflict resolution efforts on their own terms. By engaging both Russia and Ukraine within 24 hours, Abu Dhabi demonstrated the strategic leverage it has cultivated—one that neither isolates Moscow nor alienates Washington.

Ankara: Defense Cooperation and Geopolitical Positioning

From Abu Dhabi, Zelenskyy traveled to Ankara, where he met with Turkish President Erdogan. Türkiye has long been a critical partner for Ukraine in defense cooperation, particularly in the production of drones and naval equipment. The visit reaffirmed Türkiye’s role as a key supplier of military assistance while also addressing its unique position as a diplomatic go-between.

Prisoner exchanges, once again, were on the agenda. Türkiye, like the UAE, has facilitated multiple swaps between Moscow and Kyiv, leveraging its open channels with both governments. The discussions also focused on expanding Turkish-Ukrainian trade, with an eye on reaching a $10 billion trade target.

Yet, beyond these bilateral agreements, the visit carried a geopolitical undercurrent. Seizing the moment, Erdogan proposed that future U.S.-Russia-Ukraine talks be held in Türkiye—a clear bid to challenge Saudi Arabia’s newfound role as a mediator. While this proposal aligns with Ankara’s longstanding ambition to position itself as a regional power broker, it faces practical roadblocks. Unlike Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which have remained neutral, Türkiye is a NATO member, making it less palatable to Moscow as a host for negotiations. Furthermore, Türkiye’s historical rivalry with Russia in Central Asia and the Black Sea region adds layers of distrust to its engagement with Moscow.

Türkiye’s complex balancing act is also evident in its contradictory approach to alliances. While remaining an active NATO member, Türkiye has avoided participating in Western sanctions against Russia, sought membership in BRICS, and maintained an independent economic relationship with Moscow. This dual approach allows Erdogan to navigate multiple geopolitical spheres, but fell short of Riyadh and Abu Dhabi in portraying the same level of credibility to all actors.

Zelenskyy’s Strategy: Seeking Influence in a Shifting Landscape

Zelenskyy’s diplomatic tour was a strategic effort to maintain Ukraine’s global visibility and relevance as Washington and Moscow redefined their own relations in Riyadh. The decision to cancel his visit to Saudi Arabia was a tacit acknowledgment that Ukraine had been sidelined in the most important negotiations concerning its future. Instead, by engaging with the UAE and Türkiye, Zelenskyy sought to strengthen alternative partnerships and ensure that Kyiv still had a voice in key diplomatic channels.

However, these meetings also exposed the reality that Ukraine is now navigating a more complex and fragmented diplomatic environment. The Middle East’s rising influence, Türkiye’s own strategic recalculations, and Washington’s shift toward engaging Moscow without Kyiv or Brussels in the room all indicate that the diplomatic battleground is evolving. Zelenskyy’s challenge now is ensuring that Ukraine is not gradually pushed to the margins of the negotiation table.

As events continue to unfold, one thing is clear: Ukraine can no longer rely solely on Western backing. The war has transformed from a singular conflict between Ukraine -backed by a cohesive NATO - and Russia into a broader realignment of global power, one where the key decisions may soon be made without Kyiv’s direct input.

A New World Order?

The events of the past few days have crystallized a profound shift in global power dynamics. The established post-Cold War order, where Europe and the United States operated as a unified bloc, dictating the terms of international security, appears to be fracturing. In its place, a multipolar reality is taking shape in a semi self-fulfilling prophecy.

At the heart of this transformation is the United States' strategic recalibration. The Trump administration's foreign policy doctrine prioritizes great power competition with China, and has apparently identified Russia, not Europe, as the more viable partner in counterbalancing Beijing's rise. The direct engagement between Washington and Moscow in Riyadh signals an intention to bring Russia closer, diluting its engagement with China on economic and military fronts—a long-term strategy that, if successful, could reshape global alignments for years to come.

Meanwhile, Europe finds itself marginalized, reacting rather than shaping events. The Paris meetings exposed deep divisions within the EU, where a lack of strategic foresight and over-reliance on past alliances and positions have left European leaders scrambling for relevance. While Macron and others insist that Europe must be involved in Ukraine’s future, the harsh reality is that the two primary power brokers—Washington and Moscow—are all but treating them as spectators rather than decision-makers.

In contrast, the Middle East has emerged as a key geopolitical player. The fact that both U.S.-Russia negotiations and Ukraine-related diplomacy unfolded in Saudi Arabia and the UAE underscores the rising prominence of the Gulf states. By leveraging their neutrality, economic strength, and strategic mediation, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have positioned themselves as rising brokers in the game of global diplomacy. If Riyadh hosts a Trump-Putin summit, it would be yet another signal of shifting geopolitical gravity centers.

The developments of the past days have not merely reshaped the Ukraine crisis—they have set the stage for a broader realignment of global influence. The post-WWII transatlantic model is weakening, and in its place, we see the contours of a world where power is distributed among multiple centers chiefly Washington, Moscow, and Beijing, and if Europe fails to adapt to this new reality, it risks losing its place in the global chessboard.