By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Ukrainian President Zelenskyy expressed deep concern over the exclusion of Ukraine from U.S.-Russia talks regarding the ongoing war, deeming such exclusion “very dangerous.” He advocated for increased U.S.-Ukraine dialogue to formulate a ceasefire plan, emphasizing that Russia shows no interest in meaningful negotiations. Zelenskyy believes that President Trump’s potential leverage over Russia, through sanctions and continued military aid, is crucial to bringing Putin to the negotiating table. He stressed the need for a trilateral discussion including the U.S., Ukraine, and Russia, ultimately prioritizing NATO membership as the most effective long-term security guarantee for Ukraine.
Read the original article here
The exclusion of Ukraine from any US-Russia talks concerning the ongoing war is incredibly dangerous. This is a recipe for disaster, reminiscent of past failures in international diplomacy where ignoring the perspectives of directly affected parties led to devastating consequences.
Imagine a scenario where the two major players, the US and Russia, negotiate a peace deal without involving Ukraine. This would essentially be a backroom deal, deciding the fate of a sovereign nation without its participation. The resulting agreement would likely favor the interests of the two negotiating powers, potentially at the immense cost of Ukraine’s sovereignty and the well-being of its citizens.
Such an approach mirrors past mistakes, like the appeasement policies that ultimately failed to prevent World War II. Ignoring the concerns and agency of the attacked nation is a recipe for further conflict, not peace. It would be a severe betrayal of trust, particularly given the pledges of support and the declarations of “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.” The precedent set would be disastrous, signaling a disregard for international law and the principles of self-determination.
Furthermore, the potential involvement of certain figures in these hypothetical negotiations presents an even greater cause for alarm. A scenario where a leader known for his erratic behavior and perceived susceptibility to foreign influence is the primary negotiator alongside a known aggressor is deeply troubling. The result would likely be a deal heavily skewed in favor of the aggressor, with little regard for the well-being of Ukraine.
The lack of any genuine leverage held by the US in this situation further exacerbates the risk. The only real tool available is the potential withholding of aid to Ukraine, a tactic that is inherently coercive and morally questionable. Using this as leverage in negotiations where Ukraine’s very existence is at stake is not only shortsighted but also unjust.
This proposed scenario is not simply a matter of diplomatic strategy; it’s a question of fundamental principles of international law, sovereignty, and basic human rights. The notion of determining the fate of a nation without its participation is unacceptable and deeply concerning. The potential for a deal that essentially surrenders Ukraine’s territorial integrity or forces it into an unfavorable peace is a real and present danger.
A more constructive approach would involve genuine multi-lateral negotiations where Ukraine is a key participant, not a passive bystander. The focus should be on supporting Ukraine’s right to self-determination, upholding the principles of international law, and seeking a lasting peace that addresses the legitimate security concerns of all parties involved. Ignoring Ukraine’s perspective and its crucial role in shaping the outcome of this war is simply unacceptable and dramatically increases the risk of long-term instability and further conflict.
The potential for a negotiated settlement that ignores Ukraine’s rightful place at the table is a serious threat to regional stability and global peace. To allow such a scenario to unfold would be a grave mistake with far-reaching consequences. The absence of Ukrainian representation is not merely a diplomatic oversight; it’s a fundamental flaw that jeopardizes any chance of a just and lasting resolution. The international community has a moral obligation to ensure that Ukraine’s voice is not only heard but is also central to any negotiations that will determine its future. Ignoring this fundamental principle would be a dangerous and potentially disastrous error.