By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, high-level U.S. and Russian officials met to discuss improving bilateral relations and ending the war in Ukraine. The talks, led by Secretary of State Rubio and Foreign Minister Lavrov, focused on establishing a consultation mechanism and high-level teams to develop a path towards a sustainable peace in Ukraine. Although Ukraine was not initially included, U.S. officials asserted that Ukraine and its European allies would be consulted and involved in future negotiations. The discussions also included explorations of economic cooperation and investment opportunities as part of a potential resolution.
Read the original article here
U.S., Russia agree to “begin working on a path” to end the Ukraine war, in a meeting held in Saudi Arabia—a meeting notably absent of Ukrainian representatives. This agreement, shrouded in secrecy and seemingly forged without the input of the nation most directly affected, raises serious questions about its legitimacy and potential ramifications. The very notion of crafting a peace plan without including Ukraine is deeply troubling, reminiscent of historical instances where larger powers dictated the fate of smaller nations, often with disastrous results.
The lack of Ukrainian participation immediately casts doubt on the sincerity of the supposed agreement. It’s akin to attempting to solve a complex equation with a crucial variable missing. Without Ukraine’s voice at the negotiating table, any “path” toward ending the conflict risks being nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to carve up the country, potentially ignoring the Ukrainian people’s will and their right to self-determination. The entire process feels deeply unjust and unfair, a blatant disregard for Ukraine’s sovereignty.
This clandestine meeting evokes strong parallels with historical power plays where great nations have met to divide smaller, weaker ones without their consent. The image conjures scenes of backroom deals and secret agreements, echoing a troubling pattern of disregarding the needs and desires of those directly affected by conflict. This raises serious ethical concerns and questions about the international community’s commitment to fairness and justice.
The potential outcomes of this agreement are far-reaching and potentially devastating for Ukraine. Without Ukrainian involvement, the resulting “peace” could very well involve territorial concessions that are unacceptable to the Ukrainian people. Such an outcome could be perceived as a betrayal by the international community, potentially leading to prolonged instability and resentment. This scenario highlights the dangers of prioritizing great power interests over the principles of self-determination and democratic governance.
The absence of transparency surrounding this agreement further fuels suspicion. The lack of communication with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy before the meeting took place demonstrates a blatant disrespect for Ukraine’s sovereignty and leadership. The fact that the agreement was reached without even informing Ukraine beforehand only underscores the problematic nature of this endeavor. This lack of communication, and indeed the exclusion of Ukraine altogether, only serves to undermine the entire process and diminish its potential for genuine success.
The economic implications of this potential deal are also significant. Reports of massive EU financial commitments to Ukraine, coupled with Belgium’s consideration of sending troops, highlight the extent of international support for Ukraine. Any agreement reached without Ukrainian consent could easily destabilize this support, potentially jeopardizing Ukraine’s economic recovery and future. The long-term economic consequences of ignoring Ukraine’s interests could be far-reaching and devastating.
This situation presents a serious challenge to the international order. The very idea of powerful nations dictating the fate of a sovereign nation without its participation sets a dangerous precedent, potentially undermining the principles of self-determination and international cooperation that are essential to maintaining global stability. The need for a transparent, inclusive, and Ukraine-led peace process cannot be overstated.
The lack of any genuine Ukrainian involvement calls into question the entire premise of the agreement. Without their voice being heard, the “path” to peace may well lead to a future where Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity are severely compromised, potentially perpetuating the conflict rather than resolving it. The potential for lasting peace, or even a temporary cease-fire, is severely diminished without the full and meaningful participation of all parties involved, particularly the one most deeply impacted.
In conclusion, the reported agreement between the U.S. and Russia to “begin working on a path” to end the Ukraine war without the involvement of Ukraine itself is deeply concerning. This process lacks legitimacy, raises serious ethical questions, and potentially sets a dangerous precedent for international relations. The lack of transparency and disregard for Ukraine’s sovereignty cast a long shadow over the potential for a lasting and just resolution to the conflict. The international community must demand an inclusive process that prioritizes the will of the Ukrainian people and respects their right to self-determination.