Marco Rubio, the U.S. Secretary of State, underscored the inclusion of Ukraine, as well as the rest of Europe, in any peace talks when it came to the Ukraine-Russia war. During a CBS interview on February 16th, Rubio shut down any concerns about the exclusion of these important states, alluding to the upcoming talks with Putin/Russia in Saudi Arabia.  

According to Rubio on CBS News, “Vladimir Putin expressed his interest in peace,” and Trump accordingly, “expressed his desire to see an end to this conflict in a way that was enduring and that protected Ukrainian sovereignty.” This interest in ending the conflict and establishing peace seems to be a good sign from Putin, but one can only begin to question the grounds on which he would want them.  

This also draws into question the use of the word “negotiation” to describe the future talks in Saudi. In peace studies, negotiation is often defined as “direct communication between parties to a conflict aimed at resolving or at least managing a conflict without resorting to violence.” There are certain aspects of this definition that will be fulfilled. The Saudi talks will be aimed at resolving the conflict between Ukraine and Russia – trying to limit and consequently stop the violence. However, the part left out of this is the direct communication between parties. Surely, the two parties of the Russia-Ukraine war are Russia and Ukraine. Therefore, the fact that these initial talks are between Russia and the U.S. dissuade one from believing that this is a true negotiation.  

Many could argue that the U.S. will be speaking and mediating on behalf of Ukraine, given its history of supporting the European nation. To a certain extent, this is true. According to the U.S. Department of Defense, “the United States has committed more than $66.5 billion in security assistance to Ukraine since the beginning of the Biden administration.” This is a substantial commitment which highlights America’s interest in the protection of Ukraine and its sovereignty. The indicated partnership does not mean that Ukraine lacks the agency and the ability to make its own diplomatic and military decisions; it is simply a display of mutuality in fighting against Russian aggression. 

However, Trump was very adamant about halting this norm of aid to Ukraine. During his campaign, Reuters reported that Trump “had ruled out committing U.S. troops to Ukraine,” and “withheld aid from Ukraine.” These statements were countered with opposing ones from Trump in late January, telling the Italian president that he would not cut funding, and then again on February 13th as he offered to only continue aid if it came with a “rare earths deal.” The interests of the current administration are not exactly clear, so history cannot exactly be a factor going into these conversations. 

These talks in Saudi Arabia seem to point towards peace between Ukraine and Russia but also raise concerns about the consequences and legitimacy of the negotiation. If Ukraine is not included in these talks, the integrity of such processes will be questioned. Additionally, if future American leadership is willing to condition aid, then diplomacy becomes a lot more transactional – and lasting peace becomes a lot less likely. A balance needs to be struck during these negotiations, and Ukraine must be prioritized just as much – if not more – during these talks. It is incredibly important to be able to speak up for the rights of an entire nation of people. Excluding key stakeholders, especially Ukraine, will undermine any resulting peace framework. Short-lived peace is created by not addressing the root cause of conflict. Diplomacy must be used as a tool to uphold peace, sovereignty, and security.