U.S. and Russia Hold Talks in Saudi Arabia on Ukraine Conflict Resolution
Diplomatic efforts in Riyadh underscore tensions over legitimacy, representation, and international cooperation in resolving the Ukraine conflict.
The brief
Recent negotiations between U.S. and Russian officials in Riyadh aim to find common ground for resolving the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Despite broad acknowledgement of the diplomatic initiative, significant tensions arise from the lack of Ukrainian involvement and European sidelining in these talks. Core disagreements focus on the legitimacy of bilateral talks absent the primary affected party, Ukraine, and concerns from European allies about being excluded from negotiation processes that concern regional security and stability.
In a bid to progress towards resolving the Ukraine conflict, U.S. and Russian officials convened for talks in Riyadh on February 18, 2025. The summit, held in Saudi Arabia, was designed to address bilateral tensions and explore strategies to terminate hostilities in Ukraine. This initiative, while welcomed as a diplomatic endeavor, has sparked controversy due to its structural and representational dynamics—most notably, the absence of Ukrainian participation.
The U.S.-Russia talks came at a time when the Ukraine conflict persisted without significant breakthrough, despite international pressure for resolution. The absence of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy or Ukrainian representation in the dialogue tabled in Riyadh has raised widespread concern about the legitimacy and potential outcomes of such negotiations. Zelenskyy himself has strongly critiqued the exclusion as detrimental to the sovereignty and agency of Ukraine, explicitly stating that agreements made without Ukraine's involvement would not be recognized by his administration.
Moreover, European allies have expressed unease at being side-lined in what they view as crucial discussions affecting continental security. They emphasize that lasting peace in Ukraine cannot be achieved without the collaborative input of European states and the direct involvement of Ukraine itself, reinforcing the idea that the resolution should not rest solely in the hands of two major powers. This highlights a broader question of international relations: who gets to negotiate peace, and on what grounds?
Despite these tensions, the Riyadh summit managed to conclude without a joint statement, indicating the continued complexity of arriving at a mutual understanding or actionable plan between the U.S. and Russia. Both parties instead issued carefully worded independent statements, which lack the decisive clarity that a unified, documented agreement would provide.
A tentative 30-day ceasefire was agreed upon, conditional on mutual agreement by Ukraine and Russia. This aspect of the talks suggested some flexibility in strategy, with the U.S. showing a willingness to resume military aid and intelligence-sharing with Ukraine if the ceasefire conditions are met. These proceedings reflect a complex balancing act between initiating peace while ensuring regional security commitments remain intact.
The discussions also touched upon broader considerations such as resumption of Black Sea shipping—an economic concern critical to the regional stability and prosperity. Russia’s willingness to consider this depends largely on Ukraine’s compliance with the terms outlined, thus placing additional pressure on U.S. diplomatic efforts to ensure cooperation from all fronts.
In essence, the Riyadh talks symbolize both hope for resolution and a stark reminder of the diplomatic hurdles that remain. The international community continues to grapple with questions of legitimacy, agency, and coalition dynamics as it seeks a sustainable peace framework in Ukraine.
Key facts
8 pointsCheck the reporting behind each point.
U.S. and Russian officials held talks in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, on February 18, 2025, to discuss improving bilateral relations and negotiating an end to the war in Ukraine.
The Guardian4 more sources
Foreign PolicyUkraine's Zelensky Denounces U.S.-Russia Talks in RiyadhNewsweekUkraine ‘Won’t Recognize’ Russia-US Talks in Saudi Arabia: ZelenskyThe Moscow TimesU.S.-Russia Talks Scheduled for Monday in Saudi Arabia, Putin Aide SaysAl JazeeraUS and Russia begin talks in Saudi Arabia on Ukraine ceasefireUkrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky stated that Ukraine would not recognize any agreements made without its participation and was unaware of the U.S.-Russia talks in Saudi Arabia.
RFE/RL4 more sources
NewsweekUkraine ‘Won’t Recognize’ Russia-US Talks in Saudi Arabia: ZelenskyForeign PolicyUkraine's Zelensky Denounces U.S.-Russia Talks in RiyadhThe Kyiv IndependentOfficial denies Ukraine will participate in Russia-US meeting in Saudi ArabiaAl JazeeraUS and Russia agree to explore mutual opportunities of end to Ukraine warThe U.S.-Russia talks in Riyadh concluded without Ukraine's participation and without an official joint statement, with both sides issuing carefully worded statements.
The Guardian4 more sources
Foreign PolicyUkraine's Zelensky Denounces U.S.-Russia Talks in RiyadhAl JazeeraRussia and US conclude marathon Ukraine war talks in Saudi Arabia’s RiyadhXinhuaRussia, Ukraine hold parallel U.S.-mediated talks in Saudi Arabia amid disagreement, distrustAl JazeeraUS and Russia begin talks in Saudi Arabia on Ukraine ceasefire
Sources for this story 19 links
Links show the reporting used for this brief. Multiple links may report the same underlying account; they do not automatically mean independent confirmation.
Compare perspectives
See what each framing puts first, leaves out, and worries about.
What matters most in each reading?
Empowering affected nations as key negotiation participants
Progressive-leaning framing
- Legitimacy of negotiation processes
- Sovereignty and agency for Ukraine
- European involvement in talks
Achieving pragmatic resolutions through realpolitik
Conservative-leaning framing
- Pragmatism in conflict resolution
- Bilateral negotiation efficiency
- Realpolitik engagement
Illustrative editorial analysis, not a survey of news coverage. These readings do not represent everyone or imply that both arguments have equal evidence.
Practice a conversation about this story
More from International Relations.