US and Ukraine Engage in Crucial Peace Talks in Saudi Arabia
Delegations from the United States and Ukraine are currently engaged in pivotal discussions in Saudi Arabia, aimed at forging a peace agreement to resolve the ongoing conflict with Russia. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has emphasized the importance of understanding the concessions that Ukraine is willing to consider. In response, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky expressed that his teams are prepared to be “fully constructive” in these negotiations.
The Ukrainian side is reportedly planning to propose a ceasefire that would encompass the Black Sea and long-range missile strikes, in addition to discussions surrounding the release of prisoners. Sir Keir Starmer has publicly stated his desire to see a deal that would restore US military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine, which was abruptly halted by former President Donald Trump, who had insisted that the Ukrainian leader be “more appreciative.”
President Biden has reaffirmed his commitment to ending the war, and insiders in Washington speculate that he is eager for a Nobel Peace Prize. This has led him to consider brokering a deal that may come at a significant cost to Ukraine. Biden has made controversial claims that Ukraine initiated the conflict and labeled Zelensky a “dictator,” while also recently threatening Russia with sanctions to encourage negotiations. As Trump seeks to advance the negotiations, The i Paper examines the potential outcomes for Ukraine.
Worst-case Scenario: Cultural, Political, and Territorial Changes
The most alarming scenario for Ukraine, as articulated by Neil Melvin, director of international security at the defense think-tank RUSI, is one in which Russia seeks “maximalist gains.” This would entail not only military and territorial victories but also demands for cultural and political transformations. Such territorial changes could require Kyiv to acknowledge Russian authority over eastern regions and Crimea.
The Kremlin may attempt to influence Ukraine’s foreign policy by imposing a prohibition on NATO membership, mandating that Ukraine remain neutral on the international stage, and requiring disarmament to the extent that Ukraine retains only a policing force rather than a full military capability. Furthermore, Melvin suggested that Putin might demand alterations to NATO itself, including the withdrawal of NATO forces from countries that joined the alliance after 1997.
Additionally, the Kremlin could seek to control domestic Ukrainian policies, potentially compelling Zelensky to resign, instituting the Russian language as an official second language, and promoting federalization to instigate political fragmentation, according to Melvin.
Assessing Ukraine’s Bargaining Power
Dr. Marina Miron, a war studies expert at King’s College London, contended that Ukraine currently possesses limited leverage in dictating the terms of any agreement. “Trump’s actions in the Oval Office were intended to demonstrate to Zelensky that he would not set the rules in this situation,” she stated. Miron also noted that Ukraine’s proposal regarding a minerals deal may not significantly enhance its negotiating position, as Russia has indicated to Trump that American companies could gain access to Ukrainian minerals under Russian control.
Furthermore, Ukraine’s backing from NATO may not provide substantial assistance, given that discussions are underway in the US about potentially withdrawing from the alliance. “Many Russian commentators suggest that NATO poses no threat to Russia if the US is not actively supporting it,” she added. Natalie Sabanadze, a senior research fellow at Chatham House, remarked that these talks present an opportunity for Ukraine to engage in damage control and mend relations following the recent tensions in the Oval Office. “The mere fact that high-level US-Ukraine talks are occurring is a positive sign. Ukraine is likely to return to discussions about the minerals deal and strive to be as constructive as possible, including agreeing on temporary ceasefire parameters for the sea and air,” she noted. Senior analyst Alex Petric from the defense and intelligence firm Janes concurred that Ukraine is likely to face territorial losses in a worst-case scenario, stating, “In this scenario, Ukraine could lose the five regions of Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia.” Sabanadze also indicated that a worst-case outcome could involve the US promising Russia to lift sanctions and resume relations.
Medium-case Scenario: Temporary Ceasefire and Territorial Concessions
Dr. Miron expressed that it is “most probable” that Kyiv will have to concede territories currently occupied by Russia and relinquish its aspirations of NATO membership. She estimated a mere “1 percent chance” that Russia would return any of the territories it has occupied, remarking, “The least likely scenario is that Russia would withdraw to the borders of 2014, or even less likely to those of 1991, including returning Crimea.” She added, “Russia will also insist on assurances that no military bases of other countries will be established on Ukrainian territory.”
According to Sabanadze, a middle ground could emerge in the form of a temporary ceasefire with troops on the ground from certain members of a “coalition of the willing.” “This will be complex, as any decision to deploy European troops without US backing is fraught with risk. Moreover, I see little reason for the Russians to agree to this at this time,” she stated.
Best-case Scenario: Territorial Concessions with Continued Independence
Sabanadze noted that the ideal scenario of winning the war, reclaiming territories, receiving reparations, and joining both the European Union and NATO has largely been set aside. “The second-best scenario, which would facilitate peace and allow Ukraine to rebuild, would involve a ceasefire along the current lines of combat, coupled with robust security guarantees that include ongoing rearmament for Ukraine and the presence of a European peacekeeping force on the ground,” she explained. “Ukraine would be unwilling to engage in discussions concerning elections or any matters related to its internal governance. Most critically, Ukraine will require assurances that Russia will not exploit this ceasefire to regroup and modernize its military capabilities for future aggression.”
Melvin, from RUSI, posited that the best outcome for Ukraine would be to “maintain its independent status while fostering close ties with the Euro-Atlantic community, and retaining the option to join the EU in the future.” Although retaining all of its territory and having the option to join NATO seems unlikely even in the most favorable circumstances, Melvin suggested that Ukraine could preserve its own government and political system. “It will likely have to concede the occupied territories, but it can retain its armed forces and modernize them with Western support, enabling it to deter future Russian aggression,” he concluded.
Timeline for a Ceasefire Agreement
According to Dr. Miron, the path to a ceasefire deal remains lengthy. “In World War I, the armistice was signed on November 11, 1918, but the Treaty of Versailles wasn’t finalized until June 28, 1919. We haven’t even approached the November 11, 1918 benchmark by these standards. Ukraine’s position is fundamentally opposed to Russia’s,” she said. The initial step towards a peace deal is likely to be a ceasefire—something Ukraine desires to allow it to recuperate and receive additional support from Europe—yet Russia has been resistant to this idea. Currently, both sides are escalating attacks ahead of the talks, aiming to bolster their bargaining positions. “The Russians are intensifying their efforts in Kursk,” stated Sabanadze. “Simultaneously, Ukrainians have launched their largest drone assault on Russia, striking Moscow and other regions. Both sides are increasing pressure as negotiations approach.”
Trump has been advocating for a rare earth minerals agreement with Ukraine, which would involve a joint development of Ukraine’s mineral resources, with profits allocated to a shared fund.
