By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following 4.5 hours of talks in Riyadh, U.S. and Russian officials agreed to establish a consultation mechanism to improve bilateral relations and to appoint high-level teams tasked with finding a lasting resolution to the Ukraine conflict. The agreement aims to create a sustainable peace acceptable to all parties, paving the way for future cooperation on mutual geopolitical interests. This initiative follows a recent phone call between Presidents Trump and Putin and represents a significant step towards de-escalation. The U.S. hopes to utilize its global influence to achieve a comprehensive end to the violence.
Read the original article here
The announcement that the U.S. and Russia have agreed to establish teams to work towards ending the war in Ukraine “as soon as possible” has sparked considerable controversy. The very notion of these joint efforts, without Ukraine’s explicit inclusion in the initial negotiations, raises serious concerns. Many view this as a potential backroom deal that prioritizes the interests of the two major powers over the sovereignty and well-being of the nation under attack.
The lack of Ukrainian participation in these initial discussions fuels deep skepticism. Without Ukraine’s voice at the table from the outset, any agreement reached risks overlooking the fundamental needs and desires of the Ukrainian people, those most directly affected by the conflict. The resulting agreements could be perceived, rightly or wrongly, as a form of forced partition or a surrender of Ukrainian territory and sovereignty in exchange for an uneasy peace.
The perception of the U.S. acting unilaterally with Russia fuels further outrage. The sentiment that the U.S. is prioritizing its own interests or seeking to broker a deal favorable to Russia is widespread. Concerns that the “peace” achieved may resemble a thinly veiled surrender, offering Russia territorial gains and influence without sufficient concessions or reparations for the immense damage it has caused, are very real. This fear is amplified by the absence of any significant mention of accountability for Russian aggression.
The potential for this initiative to legitimize Russia’s actions and downplay its responsibility for initiating the war is a critical point of contention. The perception that the current U.S. administration might be willing to sacrifice Ukrainian interests in pursuit of a hasty end to the conflict, regardless of the cost to Ukraine’s sovereignty and future, is a serious concern. This fear is further intensified by historical parallels drawn to other international conflicts where powerful nations have negotiated settlements without the involvement or consent of the directly affected populations.
The idea of establishing “consultation mechanisms” to address irritants in bilateral U.S.-Russia relations while ignoring the fundamental issue of Russian aggression against Ukraine is profoundly disturbing. This initiative seems to prioritize normalizing diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Russia, regardless of the outcome for Ukraine. Such an approach ignores the fact that the primary irritant to the relationship stems directly from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the ensuing humanitarian crisis. Focusing on diplomatic normalcy before addressing the root cause undermines efforts towards a just and lasting peace.
This proposed collaboration between the U.S. and Russia has prompted discussions about the potential for the U.S. to sacrifice Ukraine’s interests in pursuit of de-escalation, potentially leading to an outcome that disregards Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The lack of transparency and the absence of Ukraine in the initial stages of these talks only reinforce these fears, raising concerns about the underlying motives and potential consequences of this initiative. For many, this scenario is simply unacceptable.
The potential for the U.S. and Russia to reach an agreement that effectively divides Ukraine, offering concessions to Russia without the consent or participation of the Ukrainian government, is a widely held concern. This prospect further fuels the anger and frustration expressed by many who believe that such an agreement would constitute a betrayal of Ukraine’s sovereignty and the principles of self-determination. The emphasis on ending the war “as soon as possible” without addressing the core issue of Russian aggression raises serious ethical and geopolitical questions.
In conclusion, the joint U.S.-Russia initiative to create teams to work towards ending the war in Ukraine has generated a significant backlash. The lack of Ukrainian involvement, the potential for an unjust resolution favoring Russia, and the prioritization of U.S.-Russia relations over Ukraine’s sovereignty and the welfare of its people, have sparked outrage. The situation highlights the need for clear, transparent communication, and the critical importance of ensuring that any peace agreement prioritizes the needs and desires of the country that is the victim of this conflict. Failing to do so risks undermining the very principles of international law and justice.