By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Zelenskyy postponed his previously scheduled visit to avoid coinciding with the U.S.-Russia talks in Riyadh, held on February 18th, emphasizing Ukraine’s exclusion from these discussions. The nearly five-hour meeting between U.S. and Russian foreign ministers resulted in agreements to restore embassy staffing and establish missions focused on peace negotiations. However, reports of a potential three-stage peace plan, including Ukrainian elections, were met with Zelenskyy’s firm rejection of any Russian ultimatums. Ukraine’s position remains that no decisions regarding the war can be made without its direct involvement.
Read the original article here
Zelenskyy’s postponement of his Saudi Arabia visit is a shrewd move, prioritizing Ukraine’s sovereignty and avoiding the appearance of legitimizing back-channel negotiations between the U.S. and Russia. The idea of these two global powers discussing Ukraine’s fate without Ukraine’s direct involvement is deeply troubling, raising questions about the fairness and legitimacy of any such talks. It’s a stark contrast to other international conflicts, like the recent Israel-Hamas conflict, which involved direct participation from all parties involved. This perceived exclusion fuels distrust and underscores the feeling that Ukraine is being treated unfairly.
The notion of a U.S.-Russia agreement reached without Ukrainian consent is inherently unacceptable, undermining Ukraine’s right to self-determination and potentially paving the way for a settlement that could sacrifice Ukrainian territorial integrity or sovereignty. The perception that this situation is being manipulated for political gain further complicates matters, fueling skepticism among many. It appears that some powerful figures, both within and outside Ukraine, are prioritizing their own interests over the well-being and independence of the country. The fear is that a deal brokered without Ukrainian input would effectively reward Russia’s aggression, setting a dangerous precedent for future conflicts.
Concerns about Zelenskyy’s personal safety also play a significant role in the decision to delay the trip. The current geopolitical climate is highly volatile, and the potential for harm to the Ukrainian president, especially in a situation where his political adversaries might feel empowered by a U.S.-Russia deal, is quite real. The perception that a clandestine agreement might be in the works has heightened this sense of vulnerability. Adding to this precarious situation is the suspicion that certain powerful individuals, possibly aligned with Russia or other actors benefiting from the conflict, may see Zelenskyy as an obstacle to their goals.
Many see the current situation as a betrayal of Ukraine’s trust. The suggestion that a deal might be struck that compromises Ukrainian interests, possibly involving the surrender of valuable resources, only exacerbates these concerns. The feeling is that Ukraine’s future is being decided behind closed doors without its voice being genuinely heard or respected. The outrage goes beyond just political maneuvering; it’s about the fundamental violation of a nation’s right to self-determination and its security.
The proposed deal’s potential implications extend far beyond Ukraine’s borders. It raises concerns about a pattern of appeasement that could encourage future aggressions from authoritarian regimes. The precedent this sets for future conflicts is alarming, potentially emboldening aggressors and undermining the stability of the international order. The fear is that this could represent a shift toward a world where might makes right, leaving smaller nations at the mercy of larger, more powerful states.
The criticism extends to the apparent lack of genuine support for Ukraine from certain quarters. The perception that some countries are prioritizing their own interests or political agendas over the fate of Ukraine fuels anger and frustration. It suggests a level of hypocrisy and a disregard for the principles of international law and justice. This apparent abandonment leaves many feeling disillusioned and unsure about the future.
Ultimately, Zelenskyy’s decision to delay his Saudi Arabia visit highlights the complex and dangerous geopolitical landscape. It underscores the struggle between national interests, personal safety, and the crucial imperative of upholding the principles of sovereignty and self-determination. The concerns surrounding backroom deals and the perception of being abandoned by allies only amplify the urgency of the situation and the need for a more transparent and equitable approach to conflict resolution. The implications are far-reaching, impacting not just Ukraine but also the broader international order and the future of global security.