From words to action. What Ukraine and US bring to talks in Saudi Arabia

Ever since Donald Trump seriously took up the topic of the Russia-Ukraine war, the density of events already quite high has reached truly astronomical levels. That altercation in the Oval Office happened just a week and a half ago, yet so much has happened since then. Europe has actively begun reconsidering rearmament, Emmanuel Macron and Keir Starmer have de facto taken on the role of leaders of the entire Western world - since the US has voluntarily abandoned it - even China has managed to express outrage over the US’s treatment of European countries and has spoken out against a possible behind-the-scenes deal between Washington and Moscow.

At first, it seemed that Ukraine had managed to fend off the consequences of the White House scandal with minimal damage. Following British advice, Volodymyr Zelenskyy posted a repentant tweet, acknowledging Trump’s leadership and expressing readiness to work under this leadership to achieve peace. Trump himself responded positively to Zelenskyy's letter - the fears circulating in Kyiv’s corridors that in his address to Congress, he would completely obliterate Ukraine and/or Zelenskyy did not materialize.

However, another fear did come true - the US cut Ukraine off from military aid and intelligence data. And they explained it in plain terms: for blackmail. Trump’s special envoy on Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, even compared Ukraine to a donkey that needs to be smacked to get its attention - and the aid cutoff served precisely as such a blow.

Yet neither Kyiv nor Washington dared to escalate the conflict into a complete breakdown of relations. On the contrary, both capitals are expressing optimism about today’s negotiations in Saudi Jeddah. The only problem is that it’s unclear what exactly this optimism is based on.

What US brings to negotiations

There are two main thoughts regarding Trump and his team’s behavior and statements. Proponents of the first believe that an approach to the American President can and must be found. They were particularly active in the first days after the Washington scandal, pointing out numerous mistakes made by Zelenskyy - from his attire to the way he structured the conversation or his refusal to use interpreters. According to them, if he had worn a suit, not interrupted Trump, and shown him not pictures of Ukrainian prisoners but drafts of some contracts with round figures, the outcome could have been entirely different, much more favorable for Ukraine.

Representatives of the second thought argue that while there may have been communication mistakes with the Americans, and they should have been avoided, fundamentally, nothing would have changed because Trump had long since made up his mind about Ukraine and Zelenskyy personally. No suits or ties could fix that. For example, Canada and its government tried to treat Trump with the utmost respect - but that didn’t save them from tariffs and daily territorial harassment.

Analyzing Trump's statements from a logical perspective is extremely difficult, if not impossible. A vivid example is his sensational statements on Friday, according to which: 1) Putin wants peace; 2) therefore, he is fiercely bombing Ukraine; 3) because that’s what anyone in his place would do; 4) and the problem isn’t Putin at all, but Zelenskyy. Or yesterday’s musings that Russia also "has no cards in hand" - even though just a few days ago, those "cards" were in Putin’s hands. How he managed to lose them, Trump, of course, did not clarify.

So, from Trump’s and his team’s daily speeches and comments, one conclusion can be drawn. They truly seek what they say they do - the fastest possible end to the war in Ukraine, under any conditions, except one: the US should no longer spend resources and energy on this overseas war.

In recent days, numerous American journalists and commentators have expressed outrage that the US is showing toughness toward only one side of the war - Ukraine. The “carrot and stick” method is working very unevenly. Some have even tried to ask Trump directly about this - only to hear in response that it’s all Biden’s fault.

Negotiations in the Oval Office (Photo: Getty Images)

From Trump's perspective, putting pressure specifically on the Ukrainians follows a certain logic. The quickest way to end a match between two unequal opponents (and Ukraine, no matter how you spin it, is still in the weaker position) is precisely to trip up the weaker and more vulnerable one.

Trump’s entourage has been repeating for several days what exactly they expect from today’s meeting - signals that the Ukrainians are truly inclined toward peace. Since it's hardly possible to quantitatively measure Ukrainians’ level of inclination, the indicator will be their willingness to make concessions. According to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, this will, in any case, involve some form of territorial concessions (evidently, today in Jeddah, they will at least expect our team to articulate a readiness for this). And here, Ukraine may still try to extract maximum benefit from the situation.

What Ukraine brings to negotiations

After the altercation in the White House, the Ukrainian team realized that it would have to make some concessions to the Americans at this stage - apparently, France and Britain also convinced Kyiv of this. The initial concept - no ceasefire until firm security guarantees from the US are received - had no chance of being implemented.

Thus, the Franco-British plan for a partial or trial ceasefire in the air and at sea was put into play, and Ukraine agreed to it. According to an informed source at RBC-Ukraine, the maximum goal for today’s negotiations is to ensure that a potential partial ceasefire is backed by something - at least the possible US support in the future (in some form) of a European military contingent in Ukraine. So far, Trump and his team have given extremely vague responses, even by their standards. However, Rubio has assessed the idea of a limited ceasefire quite normally.

A deeper strategy is to finally shift the ball into Russia’s court. Here, Ukraine presents a concrete idea - no fighting at sea, no shelling of rear positions, etc. - and Russia will have to respond somehow. If Trump dislikes their response, then (at least there is such hope) he might reconsider whether “Putin wants peace” and whether the main issue is Ukraine’s position - or if the reality is entirely different.

"We cannot enter a ceasefire from a losing position - that would haunt us in the future. It’s important to show that Russia has not won. If there is a partial ceasefire as we propose, it can be framed as parity - here’s our stance, here’s Russia’s, and both sides had to make concessions. This sends a signal that in the future, we won’t be forced into some kind of oppressive agreements," the source explains.

The worst-case scenario is if Ukraine is forced to accept a purely Russian version of the process: agreeing to a ceasefire based on the Istanbul agreements. In the long run, this would mean that Ukraine, no matter how you look at it, has lost the war and will remain in the zone of interest of the aggressor country - and the US, in principle, is okay with that.

Over the past four months, since Trump’s election victory, RBC-Ukraine has frequently heard from various sources - both Ukrainian and European - that Ukraine’s main hope in the medium and long term is to count on the extreme stupidity and arrogance of the Russians, who might manage to lose an almost won game. Today in Jeddah, there will seemingly be no Russians - so our side’s task will be to nudge the aggressors into making a mistake remotely.