UJ
—
Vladimir Putin is in a strong position ahead of pivotal US-Russia discussions scheduled for Tuesday in Saudi Arabia, aimed at resolving the Ukraine conflict.
The administration of Donald Trump has broken the Russian leader’s global isolation, disrupted Western solidarity on the issue, and raised questions about the extent of US commitment to European defense, indicating a remarkable pivot toward Putin at the expense of traditional alliances.
Amid a barrage of inconsistent messages during their initial outreach in Europe, Trump’s advisors have raised fears that the US president may agree to almost any deal with Putin — even at Ukraine’s expense and while threats of Russian territorial expansion loom over Europe.
Concerns that the US might exclude its European allies from Ukraine peace talks — despite their roles being crucial for security guarantees and troop contributions to any ceasefire — have sent shockwaves throughout Europe, prompting France to convene an emergency meeting of key leaders in Paris on Monday.
Trump has instigated apprehensions that Ukraine itself may be sidelined in negotiations crucial to its existence following the invasion that brought devastation and war crimes upon its citizens.
On Sunday, the president suggested a potential meeting with Putin “very soon,” stating in Florida, “We’re making progress. We aim to achieve peace with Russia and Ukraine, and we are dedicating significant effort to it.”
After Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky expressed on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that he would “never accept any agreements made between the United States and Russia regarding Ukraine without its input,” Trump vaguely assured that he would be “involved.”
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, national security adviser Mike Waltz, and Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff are set to lead the US delegation in the talks hosted by Saudi Arabia, which maintains friendly relations with both Moscow and the Trump administration.
Rubio characterized this meeting as a continuation of Trump’s recent phone conversation with Putin, remarking, “The next few weeks and days will reveal whether it’s a serious endeavor. One phone call does not lead to peace and cannot resolve a conflict as intricate as this.”
Rubio also countered remarks made by Trump’s envoy to Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, who suggested on Saturday that while Ukraine would partake in the negotiations, European nations would be excluded. “If genuine negotiations take place — which we have yet to see — Ukraine must be included as they are the nation that was invaded. Additionally, European nations will need to be involved given their sanctions against Putin and Russia, as well as their contributions to this cause,” Rubio said.
The shifting US stance on the proposed peace negotiations highlights the need to remain cautious about hastily reacting to the early statements from Trump and his team until the actual content of their strategies becomes clear. Without the new president’s commitment to strengthen ties with Putin, the prospects of a swift resolution to the ongoing conflict are dim. There remains considerable opportunity for Ukraine and European nations to influence negotiations that will only be fruitful with their agreement.
Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski expressed in Munich over the weekend that he considered Trump’s communication with Putin to be a misstep as it “vindicated” the Russian leader and undermined morale in Ukraine. Nonetheless, he remarked: “With President Trump asserting that a deal would necessitate European troops, we will eventually have to contribute, meaning our involvement is inevitable.”
Yet, the conflicting messages from the administration amplify worries that Trump might strike a deal with Putin that legitimizes the unlawful invasion, imposing it on Ukraine. While many foreign policy experts agree that Ukraine may not regain all territories lost to Russia, Trump attracted criticism for potentially squandering leverage with his outreach to the Russian authority. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth echoed that a peace agreement would lack provisions for NATO membership for Ukraine, and no American peacekeeping forces would participate. Some of these assertions were later softened by Hegseth and other officials in the administration.
Concerns have intensified due to Trump’s rapid attempts last week to fully rehabilitate Putin, an individual accused of war crimes, as he advanced Russia’s foreign policy stances over those of the West. The president appeared to sympathize with Putin’s justification for the invasion and advocated for his return to the G8 following Russia’s expulsion after the annexation of Crimea in 2014. Trump’s departure from the previous administration’s coordinated approach with Europe regarding Ukraine, along with the absence of Ukrainian negotiators from the Saudi discussions, notably undermined Western negotiating leverage. European officials may exhibit greater support for Ukraine’s interests than Trump, and their exclusion from comprehensive negotiations could severely weaken Zelensky’s stance.
Vice President JD Vance’s fierce criticism of European democracies at the Munich Security Conference — alongside his unscheduled meeting with the leader of the far-right anti-immigrant AfD party shortly before the German elections — unsettled European leadership. His speech signaled a clear intention from the Trump administration to endorse numerous populist movements evoking haunting memories of a continent scarred by two world wars. Hegseth’s blunt assertion in Brussels last week that European nations needed to “assume responsibility for conventional security on the continent” was widely perceived as a reflection of Trump’s disdain for NATO and its protective framework.
All these developments resonate positively with Putin, implying that his status as an international pariah may be ending and that a deal regarding Ukraine is within reach, solidifying his territorial claims. The schisms Trump has created within NATO align with one of Russia’s principal foreign policy objectives.
“It’s reminiscent of Easter, Hanukkah, Christmas, Vladimir Putin’s birthday, and everything else happening simultaneously,” stated Alexander Gabuev, director of the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center, during an interview with UJ’s Bianna Golodryga on Sunday. “Any unchilled Champagne is swiftly placed in the fridge, and other bottles are uncorked.”
The turmoil in transatlantic relations prompted French President Emmanuel Macron to organize an informal meeting on Monday with the leaders of Germany, Britain, Italy, Poland, Spain, the Netherlands, and Denmark, along with the heads of the European Council, the European Commission, and NATO’s secretary general.
Trump’s hostility towards 80 years of post-World War II security policy signifies a startling turn in US strategy and reflects his disdain for international objectives. Conversely, Europe has rendered itself susceptible to the more isolationist inclinations within US policy that have long been ingrained in America’s national character.
Years of constrained defense budgets have left numerous NATO members, excluding the US, inadequately prepared for the critical responsibility of defending Europe, a role that the Trump administration is now demanding. Rapid increments in defense spending will necessitate difficult decisions for leaders already grappling with welfare state financing challenges amidst sluggish economic growth.
Still, there are signs that the Trump administration’s assertive stance is prompting leaders to rethink strategies in order to make a favorable impression on the president. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who is expected to meet with Trump shortly, expressed readiness to deploy British troops to Ukraine as part of any peace agreement. In an article for Monday’s Daily Telegraph, Starmer emphasized the need for European nations to “increase our defense spending and assume a larger role in NATO,” although he noted that US support would remain crucial for ensuring peace.
The negotiations in Saudi Arabia will also underscore another shifting trend in international dynamics — the ascending influence of the kingdom, highlighted by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s proactive involvement in Middle Eastern affairs, as well as its engaging soft-power ventures like investment in European sports leagues and hosting the 2034 FIFA World Cup.
Trump has openly expressed his admiration for authoritarian leaders, fostering a strong bond between the prince and Putin. A source affiliated with the Saudi court informed UJ’s Alex Marquardt that facilitating these talks would augment the Saudis’ reputation and stature, establishing them as key players in a pressing global issue.
Saudi Arabia will play a crucial role in another of Trump’s foreign policy initiatives — seeking an end to the conflict in Gaza. The administration is attempting to encourage both the Saudis and Israelis toward a diplomatic normalization agreement that could alter the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East and solidify an Arab coalition against Iran. However, securing such a deal would be politically unfeasible for the Saudis without a viable path for Palestinian statehood. Arab states have strongly resisted Trump’s remarkable plan to forcibly relocate Palestinians from Gaza, which would equate to a form of ethnic cleansing.
Trump’s unrealistic proposal for the US to “own” and redevelop Gaza, combined with his apparent eagerness to engage with Putin regarding Ukraine, underscores the hazards associated with his unconventional approach to foreign relations. Nevertheless, the president finds himself back in the White House at a distinctive moment that opens avenues for pursuing agreements that could enhance security for both America and the globe — provided he does not endorse arrangements that disregard serious security ramifications.
Sikorski cautioned in Munich that the stakes were tremendously high for the president.
“The credibility of the United States hinges on the outcome of this war in Ukraine — and this extends beyond just the Trump administration, affecting the entire United States.”
