As the war in Ukraine reaches its third anniversary, diplomatic efforts have intensified to explore potential resolutions. Under the leadership of US President Donald Trump, the United States has taken a new approach, engaging directly with Russia while sidelining Ukraine in critical negotiations. Recent discussions between Washington and Moscow signal a potential shift in international policy, raising questions about the long-term implications for Ukraine, Europe, and global stability.
US-Russia Talks and Kyiv’s Exclusion
One of the most significant developments in recent weeks has been the formal resumption of US-Russia diplomatic engagement after years of deteriorating relations. The first major diplomatic meeting occurred on February 18 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, where delegations from both countries discussed the Ukraine conflict and broader strategic cooperation. The Russian side was represented by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Putin’s aide Yuri Ushakov, and key negotiator Kirill Dmitriev, while the US delegation included Secretary of State Marco Rubio, National Security Adviser Michael Waltz, and Middle East envoy Steven Witkoff.
Kirill Dmitriev, a key Russian financier and head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), has played a central role in the negotiations. Dmitriev, a Stanford and Harvard graduate, has deep connections to both the Kremlin and global financial institutions. His involvement reflects Russia’s strategy of blending political and economic interests to maximize leverage in negotiations with the US.
Despite the importance of these talks, Ukraine was not invited to participate. This decision reinforced concerns that the negotiations prioritize US-Russia interests over Ukraine’s sovereignty. Trump has openly criticized Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, referring to him as a “dictator without elections” and blaming him for both instigating and prolonging the conflict. The Kremlin, which has long pushed for a direct power dialogue with Washington, sees this as a validation of its stance that Ukraine lacks agency in the war’s resolution.
According to sources close to Trump’s administration, the US-Russia talks in Riyadh and subsequent negotiations have indicated a structured three-stage peace plan:
- Stage 1: Ceasefire Agreement – A temporary cessation of hostilities without an immediate withdrawal of Russian troops. This would likely freeze the conflict along current front lines, effectively recognizing Russian control over occupied territories as a fait accompli.
- Stage 2: Elections in Ukraine – The Trump administration is pushing for early presidential elections in Ukraine, which could lead to Zelensky’s replacement. Moscow has long favored such elections, believing they could create a more Russia-friendly government in Kyiv. Critics argue that holding elections under wartime conditions is unrealistic due to mass displacement, Russian-occupied territories, and security concerns.
- Stage 3: Final Peace Settlement – After elections, a broader agreement would be negotiated to define Ukraine’s territorial status, neutrality, and economic commitments. Reports suggest that Ukraine’s NATO aspirations would be abandoned, aligning with Russia’s long-standing demand.
The economic dimension of this deal is also significant. The US initially demanded $500 billion worth of Ukrainian resources as compensation for US aid, but this proposal was later dropped. A previous draft—giving the US a 100% financial interest in a reconstruction investment fund and requiring Ukraine to contribute 50% of mineral revenues up to $500 billion—was rejected by Zelensky. Ukraine possesses 117 of the world’s 120 most widely used minerals and metals, making it one of the most resource-rich countries in Europe.
As part of the discussions, both sides agreed to restore diplomatic personnel levels at their embassies, a move that contradicts Trump’s broader agenda of government downsizing but underscores the strategic importance of US-Russia relations for his administration. Moscow also secured commitments for further negotiations on economic cooperation, including investments in the energy sector and potential US access to Russian-controlled Arctic resources.
Diplomatic Realignment: The Shift in US-Russia Relations Under Trump
Trump’s approach to Russia marks a significant departure from previous US policy, which was largely confrontational following Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. One of the most significant developments is the restoration of diplomatic personnel levels to pre-war numbers, signaling an effort to normalize US-Russia relations.
This shift is evident in Trump’s unilateral approach to negotiations, which has disregarded traditional alliances and international norms. The exclusion of European allies and Ukraine from key discussions reflects a diplomatic realignment that places US-Russia relations above multilateral consensus.
Trump has also suggested that Ukraine should cede occupied territories and abandon its NATO ambitions as part of a potential peace deal—a major concession that would redefine Ukraine’s geopolitical future.
Moreover, the administration has downplayed international concerns about Russian aggression. Trump’s first international call after re-election was to Moscow, not Kyiv, signaling a clear shift in priorities.
Secret Diplomacy: Unofficial US-Russia Meetings in Switzerland
Beyond official negotiations, reports indicate that informal US-Russia diplomatic meetings have taken place in Switzerland. According to a Reuters report, US and Russian representatives have held secret negotiations in Geneva since Trump’s election victory in November 2024.
These discussions followed the “Track Two” diplomacy model, which refers to unofficial, informal negotiations between non-governmental actors, such as non-governmental experts and former officials exploring solutions to resolve conflicts or build diplomatic relations. It complements formal diplomacy (“Track One”) by fostering dialogue, trust, and problem-solving outside official government channels, often influencing policy behind the scenes. Participants in these Swiss meetings reportedly had security and diplomatic backgrounds, but their identities remain undisclosed.
The Swiss talks reportedly began during the transition period between the Biden and Trump administrations and have continued alongside formal negotiations. However, with official diplomatic channels now restored, it is unclear whether these backdoor discussions will remain relevant.
Notably, Ukraine was again absent from these unofficial meetings, reinforcing concerns that a US-Russia brokered agreement could override Kyiv’s sovereignty.
Ukraine’s Position and Proposed Peace Plans
Despite being sidelined in negotiations, Kyiv has maintained a firm stance against any peace agreement that involves territorial concessions or compromises on its NATO aspirations. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andriy Sybiha recently stated that “no one can force Ukraine to surrender” and reaffirmed the country’s determination to defend its sovereignty.
However, Ukraine faces growing pressure from both the US and Europe to engage in negotiations. Trump has pushed for Ukraine to hold nationwide elections as a condition for any settlement, a move widely seen as an effort to remove Zelensky from power. Trump has repeatedly accused the Ukrainian President of corruption and mismanagement, further fueling speculation that Washington is pressuring Kyiv for leadership changes.
Trump has also demanded that Ukraine allocate a significant portion of its natural resources, particularly rare earth minerals, to the US in exchange for continued financial and military support. Kyiv has rejected initial proposals, citing concerns over economic sovereignty and national security.
Another contentious issue is the economic dimension of peace negotiations. The US initially proposed that Ukraine allocate a significant portion of its natural resources, particularly oil and gas, to the US in exchange for continued financial and military support. Kyiv rejected the initial proposal, which included a US demand for $500 billion in mineral revenues, citing concerns over economic sovereignty and national security. An agreement reported on February 26 removes this demand and instead establishes a fund where Ukraine will contribute 50% of proceeds from future monetization of state-owned resources, with investments directed into Ukraine. While this final deal does not include explicit US security guarantees, Ukrainian officials view it as part of a broader relationship with Washington.
Overall, Kyiv has firmly opposed the exclusionary nature of the US-Russia negotiations, arguing that Ukraine needs to be include in such talks.
Zelensky’s government insists on a full Russian withdrawal from occupied territories before considering peace talks. Ukraine continues to push for internationally recognized security guarantees, arguing that only NATO membership can ensure long-term protection against Russian aggression.
Elections under current war conditions are rejected, with Ukrainian officials warning that such a move would be illegitimate, given Russia’s control over large parts of Ukraine and the displacement of millions of citizens.
While Kyiv remains committed to Western-backed negotiations, the shift in US policy and Trump’s dismissal of Zelensky’s legitimacy has placed Ukraine in a weaker negotiating position.
In summary, the US-Russia plan prioritizes territorial concessions, elections, and economic arrangements, while Ukraine demands full sovereignty, NATO security guarantees, and a Russian withdrawal.
Europe: Divisions, Responses, and Strategic Concerns
European leaders have expressed concern over the shift in U.S. foreign policy and its potential impact on Ukraine. French President Emmanuel Macron met with Trump at the White House to discuss European security concerns, emphasizing the need for a unified transatlantic approach. Macron warned that excluding Ukraine from negotiations could undermine US credibility and embolden Russian and Chinese expansionist policies.
Meanwhile, Germany and Spain, as well as Canada, have pledged increased military and economic support for Ukraine. Germany and other EU nations have also pledged increased sanctions against Russia. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced an acceleration of arms deliveries and additional financial assistance for Kyiv.
However, the EU has acknowledged its limitations in sustaining Ukraine’s defense without US involvement, and has voiced concerns against an unilateral US-Russia deal that could marginalize European interests, leading to divisions within the Western alliance.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Polish President Andrzej Duda have both held discussions with Trump, stressing the importance of maintaining NATO commitments, including Ukraine in peace talks, and preventing a settlement that disproportionately benefits Russia.
Potential Outcomes of the Peace Agreements
The long-term impact of these negotiations depends on how key agreements are structured and whether Ukraine retains agency in its future. Possible outcomes include:
- Military Implications: If a settlement is reached that involves territorial concessions, Ukraine may face long-term security risks. A temporary ceasefire could provide Russia with an opportunity to consolidate its control over occupied regions while maintaining military pressure on Kyiv. The exclusion of Ukraine from negotiations could also weaken its ability to resist future incursions.
- Economic Consequences: U.S. demands for Ukrainian natural resources in exchange for aid highlight the economic stakes of the negotiations. A potential agreement could lead to U.S. firms securing control over key Ukrainian mineral reserves, reshaping Ukraine’s economic landscape. Russia, meanwhile, may seek economic incentives from the U.S., including the lifting of sanctions or increased trade opportunities.
- Diplomatic Ramifications: The U.S.-Russia diplomatic thaw has shifted global perceptions of the war, with Russia positioning itself as a key negotiating power. Trump’s engagement with Putin has raised concerns among European allies about the future of transatlantic relations and NATO cohesion. The exclusion of Ukraine from major diplomatic discussions also sets a precedent for future conflict resolution efforts, potentially undermining smaller nations’ roles in international negotiations.
If the US proceeds with a Russia-first approach, it could accelerate shifts in the global balance of power, reducing Western cohesion while strengthening Moscow’s international standing.
The three-year anniversary of the Ukraine war marks a pivotal moment, where ongoing negotiations could either lead to a resolution or further entrench geopolitical divisions. While Trump’s administration pursues a direct deal with Russia, the question remains whether Ukraine and its allies can prevent a settlement that undermines Kyiv’s sovereignty. The next phase of negotiations will determine whether this marks the beginning of peace or a new chapter of geopolitical instability.