High-stakes talks in Riyadh on Ukraine conflict and spike of concern with Kyiv's absence

Riyadh is set to host high-stakes discussions on the Ukrainian conflict, bringing together American and Russian officials. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the National Security Advisor, and the Special Envoy for the Middle East are expected to represent Washington. While Moscow’s participation remains unconfirmed, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is anticipated to attend. Notably, Ukrainian officials have been excluded from this round of negotiations.

This development raises critical questions: How might Ukraine's absence affect the legitimacy and effectiveness of any decisions made? Could this meeting serve as a turning point in diplomatic efforts, or will it simply reflect a shift in Washington’s approach under the new administration? Additionally, how will this impact key regional players such as Türkiye and Iran?

At the same time, France hosted a separate high-level meeting on Ukraine, gathering European leaders to reaffirm the EU’s role in shaping Ukraine’s future. With U.S. officials hinting at Europe’s diminished role in potential peace talks, concerns are mounting over whether the EU will push for continued military support rather than diplomatic resolutions. Could this divergence lead to deeper fractures between the U.S. and its European allies?

To shed some light on these developments, Azernews reached out to prominent experts.

Matthew Bryza, former U.S. ambassador to Azerbaijan and Jamestown Foundation Board Member clarified the US decision regarding Ukraine, which aroused serious interest.

“The U.S. plan to negotiate with Russia at very senior levels about Ukraine, but without Ukraine at the table, marks a radical departure in U.S. foreign policy. Until now, Washington's approach had always been ‘nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.’

In addition, the U.S. had always coordinated closely with its NATO allies in Europe. However, as President Trump’s Ukraine envoy, General Keith Kellogg, stated during the Munich Security Conference, Europe will not be invited to these talks because, as he put it, previous European-led negotiations on Ukraine ‘failed miserably.’ That was his exact quote.

So, on one hand, the European allies of the U.S. are upset. European Council President Costa has said Europe must have a seat at the table. On the other hand, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, the former Prime Minister of the Netherlands, questioned why Europe is complaining. He suggested that if Europe wants to participate in negotiations, it needs to define its objectives and demonstrate what capabilities—military, financial, or diplomatic—it is willing to contribute to ending Russia’s war on Ukraine.

I would guess that this approach will fail because it will be very difficult for President Zelensky to accept any proposals worked out between the U.S. and Russia. By definition, anything agreed upon between Washington and Moscow will be viewed with suspicion in Kyiv.

As for Türkiye and Iran, their roles in this process are currently irrelevant. Türkiye, as a NATO member, has supported Ukraine while maintaining a dialogue with Russia. However, these talks do not involve Türkiye, and I believe Ankara will align itself with whatever the NATO consensus ends up being. Iran, meanwhile, is not a key factor in these negotiations.

An emergency meeting was held in France with EU leaders attending the event. President Macron has long advocated for Europe to have independent military, diplomatic, and economic policies distinct from the U.S. If the Trump administration continues to push for negotiations without Ukraine and its European allies, we could see a weakening of transatlantic ties. However, Trump’s unconventional approach could also serve as a wake-up call for European leaders, in line with what NATO’s Secretary General Rutte suggested.

Interestingly, in recent days, the Trump administration has softened its tone. Senior officials now say that, of course, Ukraine will participate—just not in this initial meeting with Russia. This hesitation suggests uncertainty about whether Putin is genuinely willing to negotiate in good faith. Frankly, I don’t believe he is. I think Putin wants to continue the war because he believes he’s winning.

If that’s the case, then these talks are likely to fail. If Putin refuses to negotiate sincerely, Trump will likely respond by dramatically increasing sanctions on Russia to weaken its economy and pressure him into real negotiations. But we’ll have to wait and see how the first round of talks plays out.”

Moreover, Finnish military Expert Emil Kastehelmi gave initial comments on the results of the meeting, which is considered unknown regarding the achievement of peace talks.

“Currently, it's difficult to assess the effect of these negotiations. Initially, the U.S. and Russia can meet as many times as they want, but ultimately, peace in Ukraine cannot be negotiated without Ukrainians themselves.

The impact on the political landscape is undoubtedly significant, as there is a stronger will to begin negotiations than in recent years. However, it is unclear how things will materialize, particularly as Russia could prolong negotiations indefinitely without achieving any concrete results. I do not think this will be a quick process by any means, and the rumored ceasefire in April may not happen.

Europe must start being more proactive. It is an absurd situation for the EU to be sidelined while other players shape the future security architecture of Europe. Of course, it is in Europe's interest to resolve the war at some point. But the problem is that the EU has lacked initiative and strategy. Right now, neither seems to be present.

It will likely take time for the EU to clarify its position. In the meantime, European leaders will closely watch the political developments being orchestrated by the U.S.”

A new phase or just another deadlock?

The exclusion of Ukraine from ongoing peace negotiations has sparked significant unrest, particularly in Europe. While the European Union has taken steps to address the conflict, it has remained a staunch supporter of military efforts, driven by fears of further territorial expansion on the continent. In contrast, the new Trump administration in Washington is advocating for a diplomatic approach and appears to place some responsibility on Europe for the ongoing crisis.

But why is Ukraine’s involvement in the peace talks being restricted?

The answer lies in a decree issued by President Volodymyr Zelensky through the National Security Council, which explicitly prohibits any negotiations with Russia as long as Vladimir Putin remains in power. This directive legally binds all Ukrainian officials, including Zelensky himself. Any attempt to engage in negotiations would first require the decree’s revocation—a move Zelensky currently cannot make due to the expiration of his presidential term, rendering his position legally questionable. While Zelensky argues that both he and the Ukrainian people oppose holding new elections, public sentiment largely aligns with concerns over security rather than constitutional adherence. According to Ukraine’s Constitution, parliamentary elections can be postponed under martial law, but there is no provision for delaying presidential elections. This legal ambiguity adds complexity to Ukraine’s current leadership situation and further complicates any potential peace agreements. From Russia's perspective, Zelensky is not a legitimate president, which means he lacks the authority to sign the peace treaty. This is not to say that there is animosity toward Zelensky; rather, any subsequent president could easily refuse to honor the treaty signed by Zelensky. We are currently at a significant turning point.

The defeatist attitude towards Ukraine is unacceptable in any form. However, if the number of countries endorsing this perspective grows, the situation may change. One thing is clear— We are currently at a significant turning point. Experts suggest that if negotiations move forward without Kyiv’s direct involvement, any resulting agreement will likely face strong resistance. And if Putin remains unwilling to negotiate in good faith, these talks may prove to be nothing more than a diplomatic illusion.