U.S. Ukraine Ceasefire Talks: The Ball is in Russia's Court
Once again, Saudi Arabia has succeeded in positioning itself at the center of one of the most important geopolitical issues facing the world. In an Encore of its successful hosting of the first meeting between American and Russian officials since 2021, it hosted the U.S. and Ukrainian delegations for talks on the Russia Ukraine war, and bore witness to the agreement on a temporary ceasefire by Ukraine.
Preceding that meeting, the Ukrainian President landed in the Kingdom to meet with the Crown Prince, setting the stage for the Ukraine – U.S. meeting and holding the visit that was due to take place last month but was delayed due to the overlap with the meeting between the Russian and American officials.
Zelensky in Jeddah: Setting the Stage
On the eve of Zelensky’s arrival and the U.S. Ukraine meeting, Ukraine launched an unprecedented drone assault on Moscow, showing that it still has the military capacity to inflict damage on Russia, and making a statement that it is negotiating from a position of strength, not desperation.
Zelensky’s meeting with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman covered key issues, including defense cooperation, energy partnerships, and the ongoing war in Ukraine. Saudi Arabia, keen to maintain its role as a neutral mediator, carefully calibrated its approach to the issues. Riyadh seeks to maintain its role as the primary broker and mediator between the parties, and is likely aiming to host a U.S. – Russia Summit and host any peace agreement in the future, even as it eyes regional rivals like Türkiye who is jostling for that same role.
The Ukrainian president’s visit served as a prelude to the U.S.-Ukraine talks in Jeddah, setting the tone and conveying added gravitas to the meeting, that was held to mend the fractured relationship between Kyiv and Washington following Zelensky’s now-infamous Oval Office clash with Trump, which resulted in the pause of intelligence sharing and security support.
It is also likely that Zelensky’s meeting with the Crown Prince included some messages to be relayed to the American side through Saudi Diplomatic channels to bolster Ukraine’s position, seeking to leverage the growing ties between Washington and Riyadh to gain an advantage and mediate between the two sides.
Ceasefire Talks: Ukraine, the U.S., and the Next Steps
The outcomes of the Jeddah talks were quite impactful and turned the table in Ukraine’s favor politically speaking. As the American and Ukrainian sides came to an agreement on the U.S. proposal for a temporary 30 day ceasefire, the ball, as Secretary of State Rubio said after the meeting, was back in Russia’s court.
One of the points of contention between the U.S. and Ukraine was Trump’s perception that it was Zelensky that was derailing progress to peace through his refusal to engage in diplomacy. With his acceptance of the U.S. ceasefire proposal, that accusation has been neutralized, and now if Russia refuses the proposal, it will be the one at odds with the American president.
The U.S. also agreed to lift the pause on intelligence sharing and security support for Ukraine, which had impacted Kyiv’s ability to engage in fighting, but as Ukraine made clear with its drone attacks, had not debilitated it. The resumption of U.S. support in the wake of Ukraine’s agreement to a ceasefire is going to reinvigorate its ability to engage effectively with the Russians.
An important aspect of this meeting is that Europe was entirely absent. It was not party to the preparations, engagements, or deliberations. At no point were its interests considered, and while Kyiv likely kept European allies informed, they had no input, a scenario that they had feared would materialize as they observed the shift in the American position with Trump’s assumption of office.
The meeting, ironically, materialized the European mantra repeated throughout its summits in Paris, London, and Kyiv “Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.” Ukraine was at the table, Europe was not.
Ukraine’s acceptance of the ceasefire proposal despite Zelensky’s resistance to the idea during his meeting with Trump, where he demanded security guarantees in order to accept, signals that Ukraine while not entirely dependent on the U.S. for its military effectiveness is nevertheless heavily reliant on it, and the pause in support has impacted its operational capabilities (despite the show of strength of the drone strike).
It may also signal that Kyiv may have calculated that its interests and Europe’s are not entirely in alignment, as Kyiv is heavily prioritizing ending the conflict while Europe is prioritizing its rearmament plans, that while necessary for the continent’s long term global positioning does not alleviate the pressure on Ukraine in the short term.
Various European leaders, among them the British Prime Minister and the French President welcomed the outcome of the ceasefire talks, likely through gritted teeth given their distance from the talks. They may be concerned that if these ceasefire talks move ahead, and if Russia agrees, they will do so without European involvement or consideration for its interests.
The Paris Defense Meeting: Yet Another Echo Chamber?
Meanwhile, in Paris, Macron hosted the Paris Defense and Strategy Forum to discuss plans for the next stage of support and the guarantees, including floating the idea of posting European troops to safeguard any peace agreements in the future.
The meeting, deliberately held in a non-EU and non-NATO format, relieved the French hosts from adhering to either format and have more freedom in inviting attendees. While a considerable number of NATO members were present, the U.S., along with Croatia and Montenegro, were not invited. While the latter two may have been a result of internal European debate, the deliberate decision to not invite the U.S. -allegedly to assert independence- was likely to avoid any divergent points of view, or overshadow the French attempts at seizing leadership of European defense efforts.
While the meeting was framed as a demonstration of unity, it inadvertently highlighted the deepening divide between European leaders and the shifting U.S. approach. Held in parallel to the U.S. Ukraine meeting in Jeddah, its tone and rhetoric was strongly divergent and focused on formulating credible security guarantees, but did not ultimately present a cohesive plan for how these would pan out.
Despite the visit of the OSCE Secretary General to Moscow earlier today, Europe by and large remains isolated from discussions on the way forward. The meeting, like those before it reiterated Europe’s support for Ukraine, which will likely be repeated in the EU summit to be held next week. However there is a distinct lack of initiative from Europe when it comes to opening back channels of communication to secure its place at the negotiation table. While they may have asserted in the Brussels Summit that there would be nothing about European security without Europe, they were absent at the table in Jeddah as the U.S. and Ukraine engaged.
The biggest concern for Europe is being completely sidelined in the ongoing diplomatic process. While Washington engages in shuttle diplomacy between Kyiv and Moscow, Europe is talking to itself while the real negotiations move forward elsewhere. Already the U.S. has engaged with Russia, and now with Ukraine and likely to reengage with Russia soon to present the ceasefire proposal. As it stands now, the Americans are the ones, with the exception of Türkiye, who are effectively engaged with both parties to the conflict and effectuated changes in the status quo.
Ukraine appears to be managing a careful balancing act between the divergent Western interests. Ukraine values European support, particularly the weapons and financial assistance that extend its warfighting capability and will leverage it to improve its position on the battlefield. However, Kyiv also recognizes that European backing alone will not be enough to force Russia to the table, and that the U.S. is more capable in that regard. In that sense, it is balancing between hard line European support and U.S. flexibility in reaching out to Russia, leveraging the former to improve its position with the latter.
At its core, Europe’s long-term goal appears to be the revitalization of its own independent defense architecture with a race between the key players to lead the Europe’s future defense positioning. However, the real challenge lies in execution. Developing a credible European defense structure will take years, requiring the development of system interoperability, joint maneuverability, and industrial-scale military production, a process far more complex than the scenarios being presented by some European leaders.
This raises a sneaking suspicion that it could be in Europe’s interests to extend the conflict to justify expanded military spending to its citizens. The defense revitalization plan would potentially incur added strain to government budgets across the board despite the measures being proposed to alleviate their effects. Absent an imminent threat, these measures may find reduced support across European polities and present opposition parties a chance to overturn existing governments in upcoming elections. These defense investments, which should have been spread out over decades, now must be compressed into a relatively short time frame, increasing the financial burden.
What’s next?
Europe’s plan to station troops as a deterrent will undoubtedly be met with strong Russian resistance, as has been stated by Russian officials on multiple occasions. While Trump has hinted that Putin might be open to some form of troop presence, such statements remain vague and open to interpretation. The potential for military buildup in NATO countries is the precise reason that Russia has drawn a red line against Ukraine, Georgia and Belarus joining the alliance, because that would bring NATO forces dangerously close to its borders. Moscow sees this as a direct strategic threat, because while NATO claims to be a defensive alliance, there is nothing preventing the doctrine of defense being reinterpreted within the alliance as far as Russia is concerned.
The added complication is that while NATO may arguably be a defensive alliance, not all its members individually adhere to that doctrine in their geopolitical engagements. The U.S. has been very active militarily in many theatres across the world, and while a Trump administration may prefer engagement with Russia, a future administration less inclined to cooperate could exploit NATO’s expanded footprint near Russia to threaten its interests and shift the mutual deterrence in its favor.
Europe’s endgame isn’t necessarily Ukraine’s NATO membership, but rather its eventual accession to the EU, which would grant European states preferential access to Ukraine’s vast natural resources, particularly its natural gas reserves that would serve to reduce Europe’s energy dependence and strengthen its position not only toward Russia but also toward the U.S..
In the wake of Ukraine’s acceptance of the ceasefire proposal, Washington is expected to ramp up diplomatic pressure on Moscow. Mike Waltz, the U.S. National Security Avisor, stated that he would likely meet Russian officials during the coming days to discuss the proposal, while on the other hand the U.S. has indirectly increased its pressure through its resumption of intelligence sharing and security support for Ukraine.
Ukraine may be hedging its bets that Moscow will not accept the ceasefire, compelling the U.S. to readjust its position more favorably toward Kyiv. With Russia gaining some advantages on the ground, it may see a temporary ceasefire with a backdrop of European and American support as disadvantages that are too costly to accept.
Moscow now has to play a delicate balancing game. On the one hand, the U.S. reopening diplomatic channels has presented Russia with renewed geostrategic opportunities, the disunited Western front has alleviated the political (and some of the military) pressure since the Trump administration began its tenure, and refusing the U.S. backed proposal may cause a regression in these ties and risk realigning Washington with Europe. On the other hand, accepting the temporary ceasefire carries the weight of Ukraine rearming through European and American support, resulting in an improved negotiating position with Russia as peace talks approach, and potentially losing any gains it has made on the ground.
If Russia were inclined to not alienate the Americans after they have made significant headway in reestablishing diplomatic relations, they may simply drag on the negotiations on the ceasefire as long as they can to effectuate changes on the ground from which they feel more solidly positioned to accept the ceasefire and begin further negotiations.
It is important to bear in mind that for the Trump administration, the long game is China, not Russia, and pulling Russia away from China is part of the strategy to weaken its growing grip on the global geopolitical arena. In that sense, we may see a more cautious American approach that seeks to balance between its interests in securing peace in Ukraine and ensuring that Russia’s interests are not irrevocably intertwined with China’s.
With the ball now in Moscow court, the next steps could determine the trajectory of the war—and the balance of power between the U.S., Europe, and Russia. Will Russia engage in serious negotiations or will it play for time? How will Europe react if peace talks proceed without its involvement, potentially cementing its diminished role in shaping Ukraine’s future? As Washington recalibrates its geopolitical priorities with an eye on China, the war in Ukraine may be entering its most decisive phase yet—but whether that leads to resolution or prolonged deadlock remains to be seen.