Momentum Builds for Beginning Peace Talks to End Russia-Ukraine War
Leaders from several European powers convened an emergency summit on yesterday in Paris, France. Meanwhile, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, today meeting with Russian officials. And the subject of all these talks? That would be Ukraine, the country Russia invaded three years ago this month, which did not have a seat at the table at either venue.
The previously unscheduled meeting in Paris came together after U.S. Vice President JD Vance and U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth attended a security conference in Europe last week. They both took several actions and made statements that unnerved European leaders. Afterwards, the United States announced the Riyadh meetings with Russia to discuss an end to the war in Ukraine. Leaders from Denmark, the European Union, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom then agreed to participate in their own talks in Paris.
The leaders at the Paris talks focused on what kind of military force assistance their countries could contribute as part of a peace-keeping agreement to end the war, both in the short term and long term.
“They discussed issues including military spending and how to guarantee Ukraine’s security once some sort of permanent cease-fire or peace deal is reached, including the possibility of troop commitments in Ukraine,” The New York Times reported.
The Wall Street Journal reported, however, that the Paris meetings do not seem to have led to a breakthrough.
“Officials said the talks in Paris made minimal progress in crafting a common position, with little detailed discussion on what kind of security guarantees Europe was prepared to offer,” according to the Journal.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz bluntly panned the meeting, calling it “an inappropriate debate at the wrong time about the wrong topic.”
Prior to the Paris meeting, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the UK would send troops “to contribute to security guarantees to Ukraine. …Securing a lasting peace in Ukraine that safeguards its sovereignty for the long term is essential if we are to deter [Russian President Vladimir] Putin from further aggression in the future.”
The New York Times noted the Kremlin’s response was interesting because it did not reflexively denounce the idea of NATO troops in Ukraine on its border.
Last week, Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Donald Trump spoke by telephone, which led to the talks today between top diplomats in Riyadh. The war in Ukraine was central to the talks geared toward re-engaging the relationship between the United States and Russia. Trump said the meeting could lead to a summit between the two leaders in the “not too distant future.”
The bilateral talks between Russia and the United States about the war in Ukraine have caused controversy. Trump administration officials said the talks are a necessary preliminary step and that Ukraine would be part of all significant peace talks. However, the administration said Europe would not be directly involved—the meeting in Paris being a direct result of these statements.
For its part, Ukraine reacted angrily to the bilateral talks, which President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said “are taking place between representatives of Russia and representatives of the United States of America. About Ukraine—about Ukraine, again—and without Ukraine.” He previously had said Ukraine would not agree to any peace deal that the country is not involved in.
In another development, Ukraine rejected a U.S. proposal in which Ukraine would agree to give the United States half of its mineral and other natural resources wealth in exchange for vague notions of security, which, at least in part, seem to be related to previous U.S. support.
“The American people deserve to be recouped, deserve to have some kind of payback for the billions they have invested in this war,” Mike Waltz, a national security advisor to Trump, told Bloomberg.
“The Ukrainian official said that, under the proposal, the United States would reinvest a portion of the profit it would receive into Ukraine’s postwar reconstruction,” The New York Times reported. “The proposal also states that the United States would have priority in purchasing Ukrainian mineral exports, ahead of other buyers, according to the Ukrainian official.”
The U.S. held position is that such a business arrangement would deter future Russian aggression because the United States would be likely to protect its economic interests.
In the days and weeks ahead, it does appear their will be a push to end the war in Ukraine. Several analysis and opinion pieces examine what such a peace deal might look like.
The New York Times’ Moscow bureau chief, Anton Troianovski, laid out many of the issues, noting that both sides negotiating for sovereignty and security guarantees will be the thorniest issue.
The BBC takes a country-by-country look at desired outcomes.
Several thinktanks have produced analysis on Ukraine peace plans since the beginning of the year, including the Center for European Policy Analysis, the Center for American Progress, and the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
