It’s been a tumultuous week for US foreign policy. Following a recent telephone conversation between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, delegates from the US and Russia convened in Saudi Arabia to ease tensions between the two nations and explore potential solutions for resolving the conflict in Ukraine.
Ukraine was notably absent from these discussions. Unsurprisingly, Volodymyr Zelenskyy has stated that his country will not accept resolutions made without their involvement. In response, Trump incorrectly asserted that Ukraine instigated the war and attempted to undermine Zelenskyy’s credibility by claiming in a Truth Social post that he “refuses to have Elections, is very low in Ukrainian Polls … A Dictator without Elections.”
In truth, Zelenskyy’s approval rating currently exceeds 50%, surpassing Trump’s. While it might be debatable whether Ukraine should hold elections amid the ongoing conflict, only someone gullible would assume that Trump raises this issue out of genuine concern for democratic principles.
From an optics perspective, the meeting itself represents a significant win for Putin, affirming his long-held ambition to reclaim Russia’s status as a great power, which he believes is its historical right. In this framework, the future of Ukraine—and Europe as a whole—seems destined to be dictated by the United States and Russia, disregarding the populations affected.
For Trump, this aligns perfectly with his approach of having Russia and the US dictate terms. Much like the recent encounter where the US president and Israeli prime minister decided the fate of the Palestinians without their presence, in Trump’s worldview, the powerful make the decisions that the vulnerable must simply accept, while international laws and human rights are often ignored.
One thing can be said for Trump: he is consistent. His administration displayed a glaring double standard regarding two significant conflicts—Ukraine and Gaza—where Russia’s blatant breaches of war laws were rightly criticized, whereas Israel’s similar actions were shamefully overlooked and supported. The rights of the Ukrainian people to autonomy and self-determination were seen as non-negotiable, in stark contrast to the Palestinian plight, which was deemed open to negotiation, if acknowledged at all.
Now, Trump seems to be addressing this inconsistency by sacrificing the interests of both Ukrainians and Palestinians. Just like his controversial proposal regarding Gaza’s forced displacement, he appears to view negotiations on Ukraine primarily as a business opportunity, as highlighted by the state department’s mention of potential new “investment opportunities” in improving US-Russia ties. (This further illustrates how misguided the Washington establishment’s portrayal of Trump as “isolationist” has been. In reality, Trump embodies an old-school imperialist mentality, ever in search of new gains. The focus on labeling him a “Russian asset” has obscured the more pressing challenge of his homegrown predatory authoritarian capitalism.)
That said, it is crucial to remain measured in our response to these negotiations; we should not dismiss the pursuit of diplomacy to resolve the conflict. It is essential to maintain a broader perspective on what Trump is advocating and how his foreign policy maneuvers fit into his overall agenda. While Trump’s remarks suggest a worrisome trend and a PR victory for Putin, this should not deter discussions altogether. We should engage with our adversaries more frequently rather than less. The key question remains: what concessions can be gained from these discussions? If this initial dialogue contributes to a sustainable end to the conflict, that is a positive outcome. The specifics will be crucial.
Ukrainian acceptance will also be vital. There is some indication that Ukrainians might consider an agreement that falls short of total victory. A November Gallup poll indicates that 52% of Ukrainians are keen to negotiate a swift resolution to the war. Among this group, over half (52%) believe that Ukraine should be open to making certain territorial compromises as part of that agreement.
However, for any potential agreement to transcend a mere temporary ceasefire, it must guarantee Ukraine’s security and sovereignty. Simply enforcing an arrangement that relegates Ukraine back to a status of subservience to Russia is not only unjust but also unlikely to succeed. No people would willingly accept decisions about their futures imposed from above, and they should not be expected to do so. Ukrainians will resist, just as Palestinians would.
European allies have understandably reacted with alarm to Trump’s sudden policy shift, even though they should have anticipated it. Europeans cannot be excluded from negotiations shaping the future of their own region any more than Ukraine can be sidelined from discussions regarding its destiny. If this latest upheaval finally motivates our European allies to assume greater responsibility for regional security, that could yield a positive outcome. Nonetheless, given how swiftly the urgency around previous “turning points” has dissipated, it would be wise not to get too optimistic.
The specific tone and choice of venue for this week’s discussions in Riyadh (which itself serves as a propaganda triumph for the Saudi regime) is merely one facet of a broader scenario where the United States is increasingly aligning itself with global forces of ethnonationalism, authoritarianism, and oligarchy. As the Trump administration draws closer to right-wing autocrats around the world, it simultaneously dismantles the administrative state at home, redistributing power among its oligarch allies.
Until Democrats are willing to confront the impact that wealthy interests have on their party and governance, they will struggle to present a persuasive and viable alternative.
