Bargaining For Survival: The High-Stakes Diplomacy Between America, Ukraine, And Russia

As Ukraine enters another year of war, its leaders are facing a brutal reality: victory on the battlefield is uncertain, and the path to peace runs through complex, high-stakes negotiations. With a potential settlement on the horizon, Ukraine must navigate not only its conflict with Russia but also the shifting political landscape of its most crucial ally—the United States. The upcoming negotiations in Jeddah may offer a rare diplomatic opening, but for Ukraine, securing a favorable deal will require careful maneuvering between America’s internal politics, Russia’s strategic ambitions, and the broader global order.

The Stakes for Ukraine

For Ukraine, the war has become a test of endurance—both militarily and economically. With Western aid propping up its defenses and economy, Kyiv understands that its negotiating position is directly tied to its ability to continue fighting. The goal in Jeddah is clear: secure commitments that ensure Ukraine’s sovereignty while avoiding the kind of concessions that could amount to de facto Russian control over occupied territories.

However, the risks are equally stark. If Ukraine appears too eager for a deal, it may embolden Russia to demand unacceptable terms. On the other hand, if it refuses any compromise, it risks alienating allies who may be looking for a way to wind down their involvement. The challenge for Kyiv is to find a middle ground—one that maintains international support while keeping its territorial integrity intact.

America’s Role: A Divided Powerbroker

Ukraine’s biggest backer—the United States—finds itself deeply divided over its role in the war. President Donald Trump has signaled that he would take a very different approach. His previous administration’s dealings with Ukraine were transactional at best, and he has made it clear that he sees continued U.S. involvement in the war as unnecessary. Ukraine may find itself negotiating not just with Russia, but also with a White House more inclined to cut a deal that favors disengagement over long-term support.

This uncertainty forces Ukraine to consider two diplomatic timelines: one that aligns with Trump’s current commitments and another that anticipates a potential shift in U.S. policy. Kyiv’s success in Jeddah may depend on convincing allies that America’s support is not a short-term gamble.

Russia’s Calculations

For Vladimir Putin, the negotiations in Jeddah are less about compromise and more about solidifying Russia’s gains. With battlefield momentum shifting unpredictably, the Kremlin’s strategy is to prolong the war until Ukraine and its allies tire of the conflict. By dragging out the war and leveraging Western fatigue, Russia hopes to force Ukraine into accepting a deal that legitimizes its territorial advances.

Moscow also understands that American political uncertainty plays to its advantage. If Trump—or any Republican skeptical of Ukraine aid—gains power, Russia may be in a stronger negotiating position simply by waiting. However, Putin also has domestic considerations. As much as he wants to project strength, the war has drained Russia’s economy, and prolonging it indefinitely carries its own risks. The Jeddah talks, while unlikely to bring a breakthrough, could provide an opportunity for Russia to gauge the West’s willingness to keep backing Ukraine.

The Battlefield and the Bargaining Table

Diplomatic negotiations are rarely separate from military realities. Ukraine’s ability to secure a favorable deal depends largely on how it performs on the battlefield. A strong counteroffensive could pressure Russia into making concessions, while a stalled military effort could push Kyiv toward difficult compromises.

Western military support is another key factor. If Ukraine’s allies signal wavering commitment, Russia may take a harder stance in negotiations, betting that time is on its side. Conversely, if Western aid continues at current levels—or increases—Ukraine could have the leverage to demand more from the talks.

Past conflicts offer a cautionary tale. The Minsk agreements, signed after Russia’s 2014 invasion of Crimea and eastern Ukraine, were largely seen as a failure because they locked in Russian territorial gains while leaving Ukraine vulnerable. Kyiv will be wary of any deal that resembles a temporary ceasefire rather than a long-term solution.

The Jeddah Meeting: A Chance for Progress or Just Another Diplomatic Show?

Saudi Arabia’s hosting of the Jeddah negotiations signals its growing interest in shaping global conflicts, but the real question is whether the meeting will produce tangible results. Key players—including European nations, China, and developing countries—have differing priorities.

• The U.S. and Europe want to maintain pressure on Russia while avoiding direct military confrontation.
• China seeks to position itself as a neutral broker but ultimately prefers a weakened Western influence.
• Saudi Arabia is eager to prove itself as a global diplomatic power, but its ability to push Russia and Ukraine toward a deal is uncertain.

Possible outcomes of Jeddah could range from symbolic commitments to an actual roadmap for future talks. However, without Russia’s full participation or a clear shift on the battlefield, the meeting risks becoming another round of diplomatic posturing rather than a step toward real peace.

Conclusion

Ukraine’s survival depends as much on diplomacy as it does on military strength. The Jeddah negotiations are an opportunity, but they also highlight the brutal realities of modern warfare—where deals are shaped by shifting alliances, election cycles, and economic pressures.

For Ukraine, the most pressing challenge may not be negotiating with Russia, but ensuring that its allies remain committed. With U.S. political dynamics in flux, Kyiv must prepare for all scenarios—whether that means securing immediate gains or recalibrating its strategy.

In the end, the road to peace will not be determined by a single meeting in Jeddah. It will be shaped by a relentless struggle—on the battlefield, in political backrooms, and at negotiating tables where survival is the only acceptable outcome.

Author: Ricardo Goulart