By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia sought Ukrainian President Zelenskyy’s inclusion in US-Russia talks held in Riyadh on February 18th. However, both the US and Russian delegations refused this, preferring a bilateral meeting. Subsequently, Zelenskyy postponed his planned Saudi Arabia visit, citing the exclusion as a surprise. Following the meeting, the US and Russia reported progress on addressing obstacles to bilateral relations and establishing high-level negotiating groups on the Ukraine conflict.
Read the original article here
Saudi Arabia’s proposal to include Ukraine in peace talks regarding the ongoing conflict sparked a significant controversy, with both the United States and Russia vehemently opposing the idea. The very notion that Saudi Arabia, a country with its own human rights record under scrutiny, was advocating for a more inclusive and equitable approach to negotiations than the US and Russia highlights the unusual dynamics at play. This situation underscores a profound shift in global perceptions, forcing a reassessment of traditional geopolitical alignments.
The exclusion of Ukraine from such crucial discussions is seen by many as fundamentally flawed and deeply unfair. It’s akin to negotiating the fate of a nation without its active participation, essentially treating Ukraine as a mere object to be disposed of rather than a sovereign entity with its own legitimate interests and voice. The sheer audacity of this approach leaves many questioning the motives behind it.
This decision raises serious questions about the intentions of the US and Russia. Their opposition to Ukrainian involvement casts doubt on their commitment to genuine peace negotiations. Instead, it suggests a preference for a power-sharing arrangement that benefits only the parties directly involved, leaving Ukraine to bear the brunt of the decisions made in its absence.
The reaction to Saudi Arabia’s proposal exposes deep skepticism about the US and Russia’s positions. The outrage voiced across various platforms points to a widespread belief that a just and lasting peace cannot be achieved without the full participation of all affected parties, including Ukraine. This sentiment reflects a growing international consensus that sidelining Ukraine is not only morally questionable but also strategically unwise.
The Saudi initiative, while unexpected, highlights a critical point: the kingdom’s perspective seems surprisingly pragmatic and ethically sound compared to the major players involved. This unexpected moral high ground held by Saudi Arabia is a stark indictment of the actions and perceived priorities of both the US and Russia. The absurdity of this situation, where a country with a less-than-perfect human rights record appears more reasonable than established global powers, is not lost on anyone.
The controversy further underscores the deep distrust surrounding US foreign policy, particularly under its current leadership. The accusations of Russia holding significant influence over the US policy, even going so far as to call Trump a “Russian asset,” add layers of complexity to an already contentious situation. Such allegations, if true, raise serious questions about the integrity and independence of American foreign policy decisions.
The implications of excluding Ukraine from these talks extend far beyond the immediate conflict. It undermines international law, weakens the principle of self-determination, and sets a dangerous precedent for future conflicts. This disregard for Ukrainian sovereignty raises fears about the future stability of the international order and the potential for similar actions in other geopolitical situations.
The world is watching, and many are questioning the legitimacy of a peace process that deliberately shuts out a major player. The ensuing debate has brought into sharp relief the complicated dynamics at play and has highlighted an unexpected source of moral compass – seemingly placing Saudi Arabia in a more just position than the US and Russia. The long-term consequences of such a decision are yet to be fully realized, but the immediate impact is a further erosion of trust in the involved nations and the emergence of many unforeseen challenges. The ramifications of this unprecedented situation are likely to be felt for years to come.