By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Despite US assurances of Ukrainian involvement, a senior Ukrainian source confirms Kyiv received no invitation to US-Russia peace talks scheduled for Saudi Arabia. These talks, initiated after a renewed US-Russia dialogue, will proceed without European participation, prompting a separate European summit in Paris. President Zelensky has repeatedly rejected any peace deal excluding Ukraine, while US officials offer conflicting statements regarding Kyiv’s role in the negotiations. The situation highlights conflicting approaches and a lack of clarity surrounding the peace process.
Read the original article here
Ukraine not invited to US-Russia peace talks in Saudi Arabia, a source reveals, casts a long shadow over any hope for genuine peace. The very notion of peace negotiations excluding one of the primary belligerents is inherently flawed, suggesting a process more focused on appeasement than equitable resolution. This exclusion undermines the fundamental principles of fairness and self-determination, raising serious doubts about the talks’ legitimacy and the intentions of the participants.
This situation feels reminiscent of past diplomatic failures, particularly the 2020 Afghanistan negotiations. The Afghan government was similarly sidelined until the US-Taliban deal was virtually finalized, leading to its swift collapse and the Taliban’s takeover. History offers a stark warning against this type of backroom diplomacy, where one party dictates the terms to a nation whose future hangs in the balance.
The lack of Ukrainian participation fuels concerns about potential shady deals. It evokes images of power brokers carving up territories and resources without considering the will of the people directly affected. This isn’t about genuine peace; it appears to be a power play, prioritizing self-interest over a just and lasting resolution to the conflict.
Further fueling distrust are reports of potential shifts in US foreign policy. The possibility of the US withdrawing support from NATO, coupled with a perceived lack of commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty, sends a chilling message. It suggests that appeasing Russia might take precedence over defending a key ally and upholding democratic values. This would leave Ukraine vulnerable and possibly subject to further territorial losses.
Such a blatant disregard for Ukrainian input creates a deep sense of betrayal. It suggests a willingness to sacrifice Ukraine’s interests on the altar of expediency or potentially, personal gain. This raises serious questions about the US’s commitment to its allies and its ability to lead in international affairs.
The entire situation reeks of historical parallels, particularly echoing the pre-World War II appeasement of Nazi Germany. The exclusion of Ukraine mirrors the disregard for Czechoslovakia’s sovereignty, a tragic precedent that ultimately led to widespread conflict. This raises concerns that history is repeating itself, with potentially disastrous consequences.
This appears not to be a genuine attempt at peacemaking, but a power play, a cynical exercise in realpolitik. It suggests that the primary goal isn’t peace but rather the division of spoils, with Ukraine’s future being determined by forces outside its control. This lack of consideration for Ukraine’s voice suggests an underlying agenda prioritizing geopolitical maneuvering over a just and lasting solution.
The proposed negotiations resemble less a path to peace, and more a secretive agreement to partition Ukraine, dividing its resources and territory between the participating powers. Such an approach disregards the principle of self-determination and risks perpetuating the conflict, creating resentment and fueling instability for years to come.
Even the location—Saudi Arabia—raises eyebrows. Given Saudi Arabia’s own human rights record, it’s hard to see this location as a neutral ground for discussions about peace and democracy. The choice of venue adds another layer of cynicism to the entire proceedings.
This situation highlights a disturbing trend—a willingness to sacrifice smaller nations for strategic advantage. It suggests a callous disregard for human suffering and a cynical prioritization of self-interest over humanitarian concerns. This approach to international diplomacy erodes trust, damages alliances, and ultimately weakens the international order.
The lack of transparency and the exclusion of Ukraine demonstrate a fundamental lack of respect for democratic processes and international norms. It raises questions about the role of the US and Russia in global affairs and underscores the urgent need for a more equitable and inclusive approach to conflict resolution. The potential outcomes suggest that such a deal will only serve to further embolden aggressors and embitter those whose sovereignty is undermined.
The absence of genuine consultation with Ukraine casts a dark shadow on any potential outcome. Without its participation, any agreement reached would lack legitimacy and would be unlikely to bring about lasting peace. The situation calls for a reevaluation of diplomatic strategies and a renewed commitment to upholding the principles of fairness, self-determination, and respect for human rights in international negotiations. The road ahead appears fraught with risks, and the path to lasting peace seems far more distant than ever.