US-Russia Talks In Riyadh: A Diplomatic Shift With Uncertain Outcomes

 

The recent US-Russia talks in Riyadh have yielded mixed results, offering Moscow a small victory, Ukraine a temporary reprieve, and Europe a renewed sense of urgency.

For Russia, the discussions provided both symbolic and practical gains. The meeting reinforced Moscow’s narrative that the war in Ukraine is a broader geopolitical conflict rather than an invasion of a sovereign nation. Additionally, the talks paved the way for a partial restoration of embassy staffing levels, marking a step toward diplomatic normalization. This follows Russia’s recent goodwill gesture of releasing American teacher Marc Fogel. However, there was no agreement on a direct meeting between Presidents Trump and Putin—something Moscow likely views as beneficial but remains out of reach for now.

Ukraine’s Frustration and Europe’s Scramble

For Kyiv, the lack of immediate concessions in Riyadh is a small relief, but the broader picture remains troubling. The negotiations did not result in pressure for Ukraine to make territorial concessions in exchange for a rushed peace deal. Instead, the issue was deferred to further diplomatic efforts, delaying any concrete outcomes. National Security Adviser Mike Waltz acknowledged that a peace agreement would likely require Ukraine to cede some territory while Russia might have to accept security guarantees, though specifics remain unclear.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky expressed frustration over being left out of the process, canceling a planned visit to Riyadh in response. His strong reaction underscored Ukraine’s growing concern about decisions being made without its direct involvement.

Europe, meanwhile, has been grappling with shifting US messaging. While Waltz assured that European involvement in future talks was crucial, recent statements from other US officials suggested otherwise. A remark by Trump’s Ukraine envoy, General Keith Kellogg, in Munich indicated that Europe would not play a role in negotiations due to past diplomatic failures. This contradiction has left European leaders scrambling to reassess their role in the continent’s security landscape.

NATO’s Future in Question

Adding to Europe’s unease, recent statements from US officials have cast doubt on America’s commitment to European security. The US defense secretary signaled that Washington may no longer be the primary guarantor of security in Europe. At the same time, the US vice president characterized key European allies as weak and overly concerned with public opinion. These comments have fueled concerns that NATO’s foundation of collective defense could be weakening.

European nations are now facing the possibility of needing to counter Russian aggression without direct US military backing. While NATO has historically relied on mutual support, recent US rhetoric has shaken confidence in the alliance’s cohesion.

Russia’s Long-Term Advantage

The evolving diplomatic landscape appears to favor Russia. By engaging in high-level talks with the US, Moscow is regaining legitimacy on the world stage despite its ongoing military actions and alleged war crimes. The narrative that Russia is engaged in a defensive struggle against NATO—despite lacking factual basis—continues to serve its interests.

For Ukraine, the biggest challenge remains the battlefield itself. While Russia’s advances have been slow and costly, they have not stopped. The longer diplomatic uncertainty persists, the more vulnerable Ukraine becomes. A fractured Western response, coupled with prolonged negotiations, risks undermining Ukraine’s morale and sovereignty at a critical moment.

As geopolitical tensions shift, the outcome of these talks remains uncertain. What is clear is that Ukraine and its European allies must now navigate an increasingly complex and unpredictable international landscape.