On February 18, 2025, delegations from the United States and Russia met in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, to discuss the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and explore avenues for improving bilateral relations. This marked the first formal dialogue between the two nations since Russia launched its “special military operation” in Ukraine in February 2022. The US delegation was led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, while Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov headed the Russian side. As a result of the meeting, both states agreed to establish negotiation teams to work toward ending the war and to explore potential future economic and geopolitical cooperation, and more importantly, potentially ease sanctions imposed on Russia.
However, the exclusion of Ukraine and European representatives from the talks drew widespread criticism. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy denounced the meeting, arguing that any discussion about Ukraine’s future should involve Ukraine itself. European leaders similarly expressed concerns over their absence, warning against potential agreements being made at Ukraine’s expense. The European Union (EU) has reiterated its strong support for Ukraine, condemning any deals negotiated without Kyiv’s involvement. EU officials have also expressed concern over Washington’s shifting position, with some leaders warning that prioritizing economic gains and siding with Russia over Ukraine’s sovereignty could undermine Western security.
In response to Zelenskyy’s criticism, President Donald Trump countered that Ukraine had the opportunity to end the war three years ago but refused. He also accused Zelenskyy of being a “dictator” for not holding elections amid the war. Furthermore, Trump demanded that Ukraine grant the United States access to its vast mineral resources, reportedly worth $500 billion, as repayment for past military and financial aid. The United States has been negotiating access to these resources, proposing a deal that would transfer significant rights to US companies. A draft of the agreement suggests that Ukraine would receive no future security guarantees in return — only a financial settlement of its past debts to the United States. This development has fueled further tensions between Kyiv and Washington. Zelenskyy has strongly opposed this proposed mineral deal, arguing that it would leave Ukraine economically weakened for generations. He has urged the United States to engage in dialogue rather than exert economic pressure, warning that such a deal could undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty and ability to rebuild post-war.
Despite Zelenskyy’s resistance, recent reports indicate that both the United States and Ukraine are moving closer to finalizing an agreement on mineral resource access. The latest discussions suggest a potential compromise where Ukraine would grant the United States limited access to critical minerals in exchange for additional military and financial aid. This shift raises questions about Kyiv’s long-term economic independence and whether future security guarantees will be part of the final arrangement.
Against the backdrop of the aforesaid developments, as of February 2025, Russian forces continue to advance in Ukraine, controlling:
- Donetsk Oblast: Approximately 75%
- Luhansk Oblast: Over 99%
- Kherson and Zaporizhzhia Oblasts: Around 75%
Despite these territorial gains, Russia has not yet fully achieved its stated objective of capturing all four regions. Several scenarios could emerge in the context of settling the Russia-Ukraine war:
Scenario 1: Ceasefire and Frozen Conflict
Ukraine appears to be at a disadvantage in this scenario, as it would effectively legitimize Russian territorial gains while leaving Kyiv with limited leverage to reclaim lost regions. Additionally, the dramatic shift in Washington’s stance on the conflict has further complicated the matter, reducing Ukraine’s diplomatic options. A ceasefire agreement that freezes the conflict at the current front lines could be a possible outcome. However, this may not be beneficial for Russia, as its forces currently maintain the battlefield advantage and continue to make incremental advances. Still, mounting economic pressures and diplomatic isolation might push Moscow to consider a temporary halt in hostilities.
Scenario 2: Potential Territorial Concessions and Security Guarantees
One possible outcome is a negotiated settlement where Ukraine agrees to cede Russian-occupied territories in exchange for concrete security guarantees from the United States and Europe, including potential NATO membership. Such a scenario would require significant diplomatic maneuvering and would likely be contingent upon assurances that Ukraine’s remaining territory remains sovereign and protected from future aggression.
However, this path presents substantial challenges. Ceding territory would be a politically sensitive and unpopular move within Ukraine, especially given national resistance to any form of concession. Additionally, the effectiveness of security guarantees remains uncertain, particularly in light of shifting geopolitical priorities in Washington and concerns over long-term Western commitments.
Russia’s firm opposition to any deal involving Kursk Oblast further complicates the matter. Moscow has explicitly rejected any land swap proposals and remains committed to retaking the region by force if necessary.
Scenario 3: Russia Continues the War to Achieve Its Objectives
Another potential outcome is that Russia prolongs the war, taking advantage of waning US support for Kyiv. With Washington’s shifting priorities and increasing reluctance to commit additional resources, Russia may see an opportunity to press forward militarily until it secures its strategic objectives. This could involve capturing the remainder of Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia Oblasts, fully consolidating control over occupied territories and potentially advancing further into Ukraine to force a favorable settlement.
However, this approach carries significant risks. Russia’s economy is already strained by sanctions, a prolonged war effort and domestic instability. Sustaining military operations at this scale would require significant resources and economic challenges could undermine Moscow’s ability to maintain its current pace of aggression.
To conclude, the Riyadh meeting marked a significant shift in diplomatic efforts, but EU leaders have criticized the talks for sidelining the EU and Ukraine and have emphasized the need for a multilateral approach to resolving the conflict. The mineral resource dispute underscores the economic dimensions of the war, with the United States seemingly prioritizing repayment over long-term security assurances for Ukraine. Zelenskyy’s initial rejection of the rare earths deal has evolved into more nuanced negotiations, with reports suggesting that a compromise may soon be reached. While the meeting has opened the door for US-Russia negotiations, the absence of a clear roadmap for Ukraine’s future and the ongoing battlefield dynamics suggest that a resolution remains distant.
