By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Next week in Saudi Arabia, a Trump-appointed delegation, including Secretary of State Rubio and National Security Adviser Waltz, will meet with Russian officials to negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine. These talks, following Trump’s calls with Zelenskyy and Putin, aim to facilitate peace with Ukrainian involvement. While Ukraine’s role is a key concern, the potential agreement’s terms remain undefined, though NATO membership for Ukraine and full territorial reclamation seem unlikely. Further high-level meetings, including a Trump-Putin summit, are anticipated.
Read the original article here
The prospect of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky participating in peace talks is generating a considerable amount of discussion, particularly given the involvement of former US President Donald Trump in confirming Zelensky’s attendance at a Saudi-mediated meeting. The sheer audacity of the situation has ignited a firestorm of reactions, prompting serious questions about the safety and overall prudence of such an undertaking.
The very foundation of effective negotiation rests upon the inclusion of all parties directly involved. A peace agreement crafted without the input of the nation under attack is fundamentally flawed and unlikely to achieve a lasting resolution. Zelensky’s presence at the negotiating table, therefore, is a non-negotiable necessity. However, the assurance of his safety is paramount, given the fraught geopolitical landscape.
Concerns about potential threats to Zelensky’s safety are completely understandable, given the historical context and the characters involved. The notion of trusting the parties involved, particularly considering the track record of certain individuals, raises justifiable skepticism. Historical parallels are being drawn, invoking comparisons to situations fraught with danger and deception, fueling apprehension about Zelensky’s well-being.
The suggestion that a key player in this conflict, a figure who has been accused of heinous war crimes and who has actively perpetrated violence against civilians, should be a part of peace negotiations is deeply unsettling. Inviting such an individual to participate in the process seems not only counterintuitive but also deeply offensive to the victims of his aggression. The very idea of holding such talks in a location where the safety and security of all attendees cannot be adequately guaranteed, borders on reckless.
Adding to the complexity is the role of Trump in announcing Zelensky’s participation. The former President’s habit of making pronouncements without full transparency raises major questions about the reliability of this announcement. His previous actions and statements demonstrate a tendency toward impulsivity and a disregard for established diplomatic norms. This lack of predictability casts doubt on the credibility of the information itself, regardless of its content. The apparent lack of consultation with key players and the potential for the whole undertaking to be a mere publicity stunt, serves only to heighten the anxiety surrounding the situation.
The potential risks for Zelensky are considerable. His presence at such a meeting could expose him to direct threats or more subtle forms of coercion or manipulation. Even the host nation’s reliability in ensuring his safety cannot be taken for granted, prompting widespread anxiety among those who see him as a symbol of defiance against tyranny. The very notion of him traveling to a location with potential adversaries present is fraught with peril.
Many believe a secure environment for negotiations is essential. This includes not only physical security but also guarantees that the talks are held in good faith, and that all participants genuinely strive for a peaceful resolution. Without these safeguards, the meeting could potentially become a catastrophic trap. The lack of trust in the individuals involved makes it extremely risky for Zelensky to partake.
Alternative approaches such as virtual meetings or more secure venues involving trustworthy international observers could provide a safer environment for negotiations. These methods would mitigate the security risks and encourage transparency and accountability. In short, there is a widespread feeling that this whole situation is a high-stakes gamble, and the potential rewards do not outweigh the considerable risks for Zelensky and the ongoing peace efforts. There is a sense of deep unease, a worry that this whole endeavor may not be about peace, but something far more sinister.