The recent talks between the United States and Russia in Saudi Arabia signal a shift in diplomatic efforts to find a resolution to the war in Ukraine. The focus on a potential naval ceasefire in the Black Sea reflects an attempt to de-escalate hostilities, but it also raises concerns about the broader implications of such a deal. While Washington presents these negotiations as a step toward ending the conflict, Ukraine and its European allies remain wary of any arrangement that could compromise their long-term security.

The absence of Ukrainian representatives from the US-Russia talks further underscores the unease surrounding these discussions. The Trump administration’s approach appears to prioritise a phased resolution, starting with a maritime truce. The logic behind this strategy is clear: securing safe passage for ships in the Black Sea could serve as a confidence-building measure that leads to a more comprehensive ceasefire.

Advertisement

However, the exclusion of Ukraine from the initial phase of negotiations raises legitimate questions about whose interests are being served. A naval truce, while beneficial in reducing immediate tensions, does little to address Ukraine’s fundamental concerns regarding sovereignty and territorial integrity. If this approach is meant to test the waters for a broader peace agreement, its effectiveness depends on transparency and trust. Without clear assurances that Ukraine’s interests will not be side-lined, the risk of diplomatic missteps remains high.

Any perception that Washington is negotiating over Ukraine’s future without its full involvement could damage alliances and weaken international support. Russia’s insistence on Ukraine withdrawing from the four regions it claims, along with abandoning Nato aspirations, remains a non-starter for Kyiv. Any agreement that concedes these demands would be seen as a capitulation rather than a peace settlement. At the same time, continued fighting on the ground, as seen in the latest attacks on both Ukrainian and Russian positions, highlights the fragility of any diplomatic overtures.

The war is not confined to maritime zones, and efforts to carve out a limited truce while hostilities persist elsewhere may only provide Russia with breathing room rather than serve as a genuine step toward ending the war. The broader context of these negotiations also raises questions about the credibility of US commitments to Ukraine. If the maritime truce is part of a larger strategy to push for territorial concessions, it would confirm the fears of those who see this as an effort to prioritise stability over justice. While ending the war is a crucial goal, any peace deal that undermines Ukraine’s sovereignty will have long-term repercussions for European security.

As reports suggest a “positive announcement” may be forthcoming, scepticism remains warranted. Moscow’s reluctance to agree to a full ceasefire while continuing attacks on Ukraine’s infrastructure suggests that its strategic objectives remain unchanged. The US may believe that incremental diplomacy is the best path forward, but without Ukraine at the centre of negotiations, the risk of a flawed outcome looms large.