By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Ukrainian President Zelenskyy firmly stated that Ukraine will not participate in, nor recognize any agreements reached in, Saudi Arabia-based talks between Russian and US representatives concerning Ukraine. He emphasized that any negotiations excluding Ukraine are meaningless. Zelenskyy’s own Saudi Arabia visit, focusing on oil price reduction and unrelated to the US-Russia discussions, included plans to address the talks directly with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Zelenskyy believes President Trump holds significant influence over oil prices and could potentially lower them.
Read the original article here
Zelenskyy’s statement that Ukraine was unaware of and would not recognize any Russia-US talks in Saudi Arabia underscores a deeply troubling situation. The very idea of negotiations concerning Ukraine’s future without Ukraine’s participation is fundamentally unacceptable. It’s akin to deciding the fate of a house without consulting the homeowner – a blatant disregard for sovereignty and self-determination.
This lack of transparency points to a concerning lack of consideration for Ukraine’s interests. A country actively fighting a war shouldn’t be sidelined in discussions that directly impact its future, its security, and the lives of its citizens. It’s hard to escape the feeling that this entire situation reveals a profound lack of respect.
The exclusion of Ukraine from these talks raises serious questions about the intentions of those involved. Are these genuine attempts at peace, or are there ulterior motives at play? The exclusion itself suggests a potential effort to dictate terms rather than negotiate a mutually agreeable solution, reinforcing suspicions of a deal potentially detrimental to Ukraine.
The potential for backroom deals that prioritize external interests over Ukraine’s needs is alarming. Concerns have been raised about the possibility of land grabs, resource exploitation, and the potential sacrifice of Ukrainian territory and interests to satisfy other powers. The lack of Ukrainian involvement makes it difficult to ascertain the genuine aims of such talks.
Zelenskyy’s firm stance of non-recognition is entirely justified. Any agreements reached without Ukraine’s direct involvement are inherently invalid and unacceptable. To do otherwise would be to legitimize a process that fundamentally undermines the country’s rights and sovereignty, and potentially pave the way for future transgressions.
The narrative surrounding these talks is confusing and contradictory, with reports varying on whether Ukraine was aware of the discussions. Regardless, Zelenskyy’s public statement clarifies Ukraine’s position: non-participation and non-recognition. This unambiguous rejection is a necessary and powerful statement in the face of such blatant disregard.
Beyond the immediate implications, the handling of these talks sets a dangerous precedent. Ignoring the voice of a nation embroiled in conflict, a nation fighting for its very existence, suggests a disregard for international norms and principles of self-determination. The world should be deeply concerned by this.
The potential for the United States to prioritize its own interests, such as access to mineral resources or a weakening of its commitment to Ukrainian support, cannot be ignored. These talks risk legitimizing Russia’s aggression, rewarding its actions, and jeopardizing the long-term stability of the region.
The comparison to historical instances of appeasement, such as the Munich Agreement, is not unfounded. The parallels are striking, raising justifiable fears of a similar outcome where Ukraine’s interests are sacrificed for short-term gains. This isn’t just about territory; it’s about setting a precedent for international relations.
The future of Ukraine shouldn’t be decided in clandestine meetings that exclude the very country whose fate is being determined. Zelenskyy’s decisive rejection of these talks is a critical assertion of Ukraine’s right to self-determination, and a powerful statement of resistance against unfair and potentially devastating compromises.
Ultimately, what’s happening is more than just a negotiation; it’s a test of international principles, a test of the commitment of world leaders to upholding the rights of sovereign nations, and a test of what values truly shape global politics. The situation demands increased vigilance and scrutiny.