By Nina Bachkatov
The publication of a joint communiqué following marathon discussions in Saudi Arabia has fuelled speculation about a potential shift in the trajectory of the war in Ukraine. The statement, reportedly based on an agreement proposed by the United States and accepted by Ukraine, is to be conveyed to Russia via American envoys. In return, Washington has resumed intelligence sharing and arms deliveries, ending a brief pause, with Poland confirming that stored weaponry was immediately dispatched. As part of the agreement, Ukraine has accepted a cease fire extending beyond air and maritime operations, as initially suggested by President Volodymyr Zelensky. Furthermore, Kyiv has consented to sign a long-debated agreement granting American entities access to its national resources.
From a geopolitical perspective, the primary beneficiary of this development appears to be Saudi Arabia, which has cemented its growing influence on both regional and global stages. Another winner, albeit for different reasons, is Donald Trump, who continues to position himself as a decisive dealmaker, contrasting his approach with that of President Joe Biden, whom he blames for the conflict. Marco Rubio, alongside Trump’s team in Riyadh, has demonstrated a surprising aptitude for backchannel diplomacy, negotiating separately with Russian and Ukrainian delegations. By securing Kyiv’s provisional approval for a 30-day truce, the president’s camp now seeks to engage the Kremlin through direct presidential-level communication and established diplomatic conduits that have remained open throughout the crisis.
E.U. limited capabilities
This stands in stark contrast with the European stance, which maintains that engaging directly with a leader accused of extensive war crimes was and is unacceptable. The EU has largely severed contact with Moscow, though some member states have discreetly retained bilateral channels outside the Union’s purview. Concerns are growing among European leaders, particularly within NATO, over widening transatlantic divisions. While European policymakers continue to champion enhanced security mechanisms, including those aimed at protecting Ukraine, they acknowledge the EU’s limited military capabilities. The bloc’s foreign affairs chief, former Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas, has remarked that “the West is in search of new leadership”— an undiplomatic declaration which still expresses a sentiment that resonates strongly with French President Emmanuel Macron. Long an advocate of European “strategic autonomy,” Macron appears prepared to extend France’s nuclear deterrence to allies. Yet the EU remains notably absent from negotiations about peace in the Middle East and now on the European continent. The prospect of an American president actively sowing discord within the Western alliance, seemingly relishing the opportunity, has caught Brussels off guard.
The two belligerents
The two leaders most directly affected—Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky—have responded in line with their respective strategies. Putin continues to project an air of unperturbed confidence, issuing carefully calibrated statements, personally or through his spokesman, that signal openness to dialogue while reaffirming Russia’s core demands. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, in turn, has reiterated Moscow’s red lines, many of which remain fundamentally incompatible with current proposals. Meanwhile, on the battlefield, Russian forces have reportedly consolidated control over parts of the Kursk region, depriving Kyiv of strategic leverage in negotiations.
Of course, Putin faces mounting economic and societal pressures as the war drags on. While he has acknowledged these strains, he remains convinced that time favours Russia. Yet the political calculus is shifting. A categorical rejection of U.S.-brokered proposals risks portraying him as the primary obstacle to peace—an outcome he can ill afford if he wants to reestablish bilateral cooperation between “two big powers”. He can afford to appear an archvillain on the international scene, but not the man who wants to deprive the American president of a personal diplomatic triumph.
Between Charybdis and Scylla
For the Ukrainian president too, the optics of being perceived as prolonging the conflict for domestic political reasons would be damaging, not least because it could hand Trump an opportunity to frame Kyiv, rather than Moscow, as the intransigent party. In fact, Zelensky now finds himself in the delicate position of navigating between two figures he distrusts: Putin, his direct adversary, and Trump, a wildcard whose priorities remain unpredictable. The Riyadh agreement has, at least temporarily, mitigated the fallout from Zelensky’s public dispute in the White house, ensuring continued military support. Ukrainian negotiators have reportedly inserted nuances into the U.S. position, with Trump making occasional references to “Ukraine’s interests.” However, security guarantees were conspicuously absent from the discussions, reinforcing the notion that Trump intends to leave the European powers to manage Kyiv’s long-term defence—an arrangement that remains ambiguous at best.
A question of legitimacy
A further complication looms: Trump may raise again questions over Zelensky’s legitimacy. While any such critique would echo Moscow’s rhetoric, it could resonate uncomfortably within Ukraine, where elections remain suspended due to the war and the state of emergency. While the majority of Ukrainians acknowledge that holding elections under current conditions would be destabilising, the details of the Riyadh agreement could prove contentious.
A fragile ceasefire, its enforcement mechanisms, and Kyiv’s ability to secure domestic compliance all pose potential flashpoints. Should the deal unravel, Zelensky risks being cast as its primary scapegoat. His increasingly centralised leadership style, marked by abrupt dismissals of regional and military officials, has made him vulnerable to internal dissent. Thus far, potential challengers—including former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko and ex-President Petro Poroshenko—have exercised caution, recognising Zelensky’s enduring popularity. Others, among them Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko, are quietly building support both domestically and among Western allies. While all opposition figures publicly stress the need for national unity, a political undercurrent of recalibration is undeniably underway.