Moscow and Washington are in Saudi Arabia to end NATO’s three-year proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. The talks are supposed to lead to an agreement on a new security architecture in Europe, which could include changes to the borders of Russia and Ukraine. At the very least, the talks may be successful.
The expression “Yalta 2.0” has been introduced into the political discourse. Peace and stability in post-war Europe were guaranteed for nearly half a century by the agreement reached at the Crimean Yalta Conference of 1945 between the leaders of the then “Big Three”—the USSR, the US, and the UK.
By definition, the resolution of the largest armed conflict in Europe since World War II cannot be simple, given the persisting unfavorable conditions, as decisive battlefield victories have not yet been achieved.
There are at least three factors that determine Trump’s interest in rapidly ending its active involvement in the war on Russian lands, a war that was never going to finish in Russia’s “strategic defeat.” Nevertheless, these three goals of the Americans—who are neither brothers nor very flexible neighbors—could also make it harder to come up with a compromise plan for a full settlement.
The Russia-China Connection
Washington recognized that the geopolitical balance of power was disrupted by the financing and arming of Kyiv for a military conquest of the rebellious Donbas republics and Crimea, which Moscow says compelled it to launch a preemptive strike.
In response to 50 countries joining the NATO alliance, Russia intensified cooperation with the US’s natural arch-rival, China, as well as with those who reject Western dictates on Iran and North Korea. It also established a shared understanding with the Global South, which regards multipolarity as an opportunity to liberate itself from the constraints of neocolonialism.
Historically, the Anglo-Saxon geopolitical doctrine was designed to hinder the rise of continental Europe by any means necessary, including the obstruction of alliances between Russia and Germany. This doctrine was revised in 1971 when Taiwan was replaced by the People’s Republic of China and removed from the UN Security Council. The second essential principle of “divide and rule” has always been enforced to prevent any rapprochement between the USSR, now Russia, and China.
The Americans may have realized that they were losing the race without hope after extrapolating the changing power dynamics in the military and economic sectors. China was ahead of the United States in purchasing power parity (PPP) by 2014 and has since widened the gap—China’s GDP was $30.3 trillion in 2022, while the US’s was $25.4 trillion.
In addition, the military balance is evolving. China’s navy had 370 ships as of 2024 and is anticipated to reach 400 by the late 2020s, while the US Navy comprises approximately 290 ships.
Washington has consistently regarded its naval fleet as a tool for controlling global trade routes and enforcing “gunboat diplomacy” against disobedient nations. Consequently, China’s increasing capacity to safeguard its own supply chains, such as securing raw materials from Africa, is perceived as a threat to US dominance.
In a world that is still entangled in neo-colonial dependencies, the key to sustaining Western exploitation of weaker nations is military power projection. The United States finds the mere existence of a strong competitor, which is capable of protecting itself and its trade partners, to be intolerable.
The Trump administration is trying to deprive China of its “strategic depth,” which is presently reinforced by its partnership with Russia, as Washington prepares for an “epic battle” with the heirs of the Middle Kingdom, which the CIA has predicted will erupt by mid-century.
At the Munich Security Conference, Keith Kellogg, the US presidential envoy for Ukraine, made a direct statement that the United States intends to “split” Russia’s alliances with China, Iran, and North Korea.
Washington has suggested the possibility of lifting at least some of the sanctions that were apparently intended to “shred” the Russian economy during Obama’s tenure as a carrot-and-stick strategy. Donald Trump’s assertion that Russia’s exclusion from the G8 was an error and that it should be reinvited to this exclusive Western society was the icing on the cake.
Nevertheless, Moscow and Washington are likely to have irreconcilable differences on this matter.
For Uncle Scrooge, it’s just business
The US government has issued an ultimatum to its Kyiv customers, who are required to pay $300 billion for American capital investments and, it appears, for lost profits from the “Anti-Russia” operation initiated in 2014. This ultimatum is in accordance with a fundamental principle of market economics, which states that investments must generate profits.
Payment is anticipated in the form of natural resources. The US budget will receive half of Ukraine’s mineral extraction revenues as compensation, while export operations will be overseen by entities under American jurisdiction. The Trump administration is contemplating asset confiscation, which would entail the expropriation of Ukraine’s natural wealth if Kyiv fails to “settle its obligations.”
This cold-blooded, mercantile approach toward its once-loyal client is reminiscent of the statement made by US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in Brussels, which emphasized the need for European countries to “step into the arena” and assume a greater level of responsibility for the continent’s security. In essence, Washington mandates that NATO members increase their military expenditure to 5% of GDP, which essentially redirects funds to American arms manufacturers.
Regardless of the security principles that were or will be discussed in future sessions of the US-Russia negotiations in Riyadh, Trump intends to transform Europe into a source of revenue for his military-industrial complex. Once more, the Western formula that is so beloved prevails: “Nothing personal, just business.”
Does the US require adversaries when it has allies like the Europeans?
A third factor that complicates US-Russia negotiations is the current unsuccessful attempt by globalist elites to sway their European clients against Trump.
The objective of the February 17 summit in Paris, which was convened by Emmanuel Macron and attended by leaders from seven countries (Germany, the UK, Italy, Poland, Spain, the Netherlands, and Denmark), was to establish an anti-Trump alliance. The objective seems to be to coordinate sabotage efforts against any potential agreements that could either temporarily or permanently terminate NATO’s assault on Russian territory.
The rhetoric of European leaders was confrontational. Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, maintained that Europe must adhere to the principle of “peace through strength.” In response to his exclusion from the Riyadh negotiations, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said, “We will not allow anyone to negotiate the demilitarization of Ukraine.” Mette Frederiksen, the Danish Prime Minister, suggested that Kyiv continue to be armed without any restrictions.
Additionally, surveys indicate that an overwhelming majority of European parliamentarians advocate for conflict and reject peace.
The Long Road to Peace
Expectations for the negotiations in Saudi Arabia, which is no longer solely pro-Western but now a neutral player, are difficult to moderate. Despite the overwhelming odds, the parties can reach a consensus on a comprehensive framework that governs the pursuit of national interests beyond one’s borders.
This outcome would be optimal, as it is consistent with the profoundly ingrained idealism of Russia. The actual contours of the emerging international order, however, are expected to differ. The outcomes of this initial round of negotiations will be modest.
However, there has been progress.