When the Eagle Flinches, the Falcon Swoops: Saudi Arabia’s Bid to Broker Peace as the U.S. Backs Away

by Irina Tsukerman

Paris Summit: FMs Andrii Sybiha (Ukraine), Jean-Noel Barrot (France), David Lammy (UK), and Gunter Sautter (Germany)

If there is one thing Washington excels at, it’s turning foreign wars into domestic theater. Senator Marco Rubio’s recent remarks threatening a U.S. withdrawal from Ukraine unless Kyiv gets serious about concessions may have sounded like a bold strategic recalibration. In reality, they signaled something far more consequential: the opening act of a geopolitical repositioning cloaked in budgetary pragmatism and domestic optics.

Rubio’s shift doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It plays in tandem with the Trump administration’s redux-era narrative—one that boldly promised to end the war in Ukraine within 24 hours of taking office. While skeptics scoffed, the slogan wasn’t meant to be a blueprint. It was a message: America was back in the driver’s seat, and deals—not forever wars—were the new currency of influence.

But Rubio’s commentary turns that slogan into potential policy. Suddenly, the onus is not on Russia to retreat, but on Ukraine to compromise. The logic? That continued U.S. support without conditions risks dragging America into a never-ending war with no clear strategic benefit. But the subtext is louder than the text: political support for Ukraine is no longer sacred, and Washington is preparing its domestic audience for an off-ramp.

Yet, the underlying assumptions behind this maneuver deserve a second look.

First, the idea that Ukraine can offer "concessions" implies there is a viable negotiation partner on the other side. Russia’s current demands are not concessions-friendly—they are maximalist: control over occupied territory, the demilitarization of Ukraine, and guarantees that Ukraine will never join NATO. These aren't terms; they’re surrender conditions in diplomatic wrapping.

Second, it assumes Ukraine has the internal political room to concede. With millions displaced, thousands dead, and a population unified by war trauma and resistance, any concessions perceived as capitulation could trigger internal destabilization, not peace.

Third, this approach gives Russia a propaganda win without requiring a single battlefield advance. The very suggestion that the U.S. might abandon Ukraine undercuts Western unity and reinforces Moscow’s long-standing bet: that time, economic fatigue, and political cycles in the West will eventually deliver more than missiles ever could.

So why float the idea now?

Because the geopolitical map is shifting. The U.S. is laser-focused on China, grappling with chaos in the Red Sea, Iran’s resurgence, and a fragile global economy. Ukraine, once the symbol of Western resolve, is at risk of becoming a casualty of resource reallocation. Rubio’s remarks reflect a broader shift from open-ended commitments to transactional realism. A future deal—brokered by Saudi Arabia, Turkey, or even China—might be far from ideal, but it offers the illusion of closure before the next crisis begins.

Into this backdrop, Riyadh senses its diplomatic “star hour.” Far from a neutral actor, Saudi Arabia has deftly maneuvered into a powerbroker position—cozying up to both Moscow and Beijing while offering its services as a regional stabilizer and global mediator. Having hosted early rounds of Ukraine peace summits, Saudi Arabia is positioning itself not just as a venue, but as a critical node in a new multipolar peace architecture.

This moment is tailor-made for Riyadh. While Washington wrings its hands over whether to write another $60 billion check, Saudi Arabia offers an alternative model: economic incentives, diplomatic access to all sides, and a long memory for transactional diplomacy. And if a deal emerges that benefits Iran or restricts U.S. influence in the region—well, so much the better for Riyadh’s grand balancing act.

If the Houthis’ rise in the Red Sea is the opening bell for Iran’s regional boldness, a Houthi-style strategic win in Ukraine would signal to Tehran—and others—that patience pays off when Western coherence cracks. And if the U.S. begins its “dignified retreat” from Kyiv, Iran will not miss the lesson.

Ultimately, this is about more than Ukraine. It’s about signaling. To allies: that U.S. support is now negotiable. To adversaries: that America’s strategic endurance may once again be measured in election cycles, not in global commitments. And to up-and-coming powers: that the path to international relevance isn’t through tanks or ideologies, but through timing and leverage.

And so, the curtain lifts on a new act. The eagle hesitates, the falcon circles, and the bear waits. Welcome to the 24-hour dilemma—now playing on the world stage.

The 24-Hour Dilemma: Strategic Clarity, Political Theater, and the Looming Pivot on Ukraine

Why Is the U.S. Backing Away? – The Illusion of Infinite Commitments Collides with Strategic Fatigue

America’s engagement in the Ukraine war has always carried a certain performative quality, a display of solidarity that, at first glance, seemed resolute and unshakable. When Russia’s tanks first rolled across the border in February 2022, the U.S. responded with all the tools at its disposal—sanctions, weapons, intelligence, media influence, and a global coalition that unified under the banner of resistance. The U.S. leadership was swift, forceful, and unwavering. But as the months and years wore on, the rhetoric of moral duty slowly eroded into something more transactional, revealing that the grand stance taken in the war’s early days was driven more by immediate outrage and reactive impulses than by a coherent, long-term strategy.

In the early days of the conflict, there was no shortage of emotional energy. Ukraine's struggle was framed as an existential battle between good and evil, and the U.S. rallied the West behind that cause. But by 2025, the initial wave of moral indignation has all but dissipated, leaving behind a far more complex and divided political landscape. The enthusiasm that initially propelled the American response has given way to legislative gridlock, bitter debates over military spending, and geopolitical whiplash. The war has morphed into a background hum, drowned out by the rising tide of new crises: China’s growing aggression in the Indo-Pacific, Iran’s spreading influence through proxy conflicts, instability in the Red Sea region, a fractured domestic political environment, and increasingly shaky economic footing.

For the first time in post-Cold War history, the American public isn’t just weary of war—they are saturated with security concerns. Every global flashpoint demands attention, yet few issues capture the public’s imagination or sustain their energy. Ukraine, once the shining symbol of American moral leadership, now competes for space in a crowded, attention-deficit world. In this new reality, U.S. foreign policy is no longer dictated by the idealistic fervor of “standing with Ukraine” but by the more pragmatic demands of strategic bandwidth and national interest. The era of infinite commitments is over.

Fatigue Turns to Suspicion – Capitol Hill’s Cold Realities

This fatigue has taken root in Washington, where it has morphed into something far more dangerous: suspicion. On Capitol Hill, the emotional rallying cry that once united lawmakers behind Ukraine’s cause has been replaced by a growing disillusionment. The U.S. public, once galvanized by the idea of supporting a beleaguered democracy, has begun to ask tougher questions. What is Ukraine’s endgame? Is victory even achievable, or are we simply funding a long-term stalemate? What have we gained, and at what cost?

In the halls of Congress, whispers of corruption in arms transfers and questionable contracts have spread, with intelligence committees now examining the flow of weapons and funds. What began as a noble cause to prevent authoritarian expansion is now viewed with more skepticism. Even Pentagon officials, once staunch defenders of Ukraine’s ability to "turn the tide," have begun to privately question whether that tide is turning at all. With each failed offensive, each stagnant front, the hope of a Ukrainian victory diminishes, and the reality of a protracted war becomes more apparent.

This shift from idealism to realism is setting the stage for what is to come: a policy recalibration that shifts from moral mission to calculated drawdown. The American electorate is being prepared for the narrative to pivot, from an image of steadfast support for Ukraine to one of measured disengagement. The groundwork is being laid for a shift in the political discourse—away from the emotional appeal of defending sovereignty, and toward the cold calculus of national interest and strategic retrenchment.

Geostrategic Shifts – Ukraine’s Centrality Diminishes in the Face of New Priorities

Ukraine’s war has entered its third year, and while the West has poured billions into military support, the reality on the ground tells a more sobering story. Despite the outpouring of Western military aid and intelligence, Russia’s defenses have remained remarkably resilient in key regions. The much-anticipated 2023 counteroffensive failed to deliver the decisive breakthroughs that were promised, leaving both the Ukrainian public and Western policymakers grappling with the frustration of limited progress. The war, once seen as a defining moment for Western values, is now viewed more as a prolonged stalemate—an endless cycle of tactical victories offset by strategic deadlock.

For Washington, the strategic calculus has shifted. Ukraine, once the focal point of U.S. foreign policy, is no longer the bright beacon of moral clarity it once was. Instead, the conflict has become a test of resources, with the U.S. now facing a pressing need to manage its geopolitical bandwidth. Ukraine’s centrality in American foreign policy has been slowly supplanted by new and emerging priorities. Russia’s military standoff may remain an ongoing challenge, but it is no longer the defining issue that dictates U.S. strategy. Now, Washington’s attention is increasingly divided across a range of competing global concerns.

The U.S. is no longer focused on the black-and-white narrative of defending Ukraine at all costs. Instead, it is faced with a triage of priorities, with each issue requiring its own share of time, money, and diplomatic attention. From China’s growing military presence in the Pacific to Iran’s unchecked spread of influence across the Middle East, the bandwidth of American leadership is stretched thinner than ever. With an unstable economy, domestic political disarray, and the looming pressures of future global crises, the U.S. simply cannot afford to keep Ukraine’s war at the center of its strategic focus.

A Shift from Moral Clarity to Strategic Triage – The Decline of Ukraine’s Primacy

In this new geopolitical environment, Ukraine has become a casualty of shifting American priorities. The grand moral mission that once justified endless support is now being reframed as a difficult, but ultimately secondary, challenge. The days of viewing Ukraine as the frontline in the West’s battle for democracy and sovereignty are fading. In their place is the more pragmatic reality of managing a constellation of crises that stretch from the Indo-Pacific to the Middle East to the heart of Europe.

As Ukraine fades from the center of U.S. foreign policy, Washington is turning inward—focused on recalibrating its strategy to match the broader realities of a multipolar world. The war in Ukraine is no longer a decisive conflict that will shape the future of the Western order. It has become a battle of attrition—an ongoing, bloody conflict that, while important, is no longer at the epicenter of American geopolitical thought. In a world where every conflict demands attention and every crisis needs a response, the U.S. is learning the hard lesson that infinite commitments are unsustainable. And so, as Ukraine’s centrality wanes, the real work begins: balancing priorities, managing strategic bandwidth, and navigating a global landscape in which moral clarity is often at odds with practical limitations.

Trump’s 24-Hour Boast – Not a Promise, But a Performance Piece

When Donald Trump claimed he could end the war in Ukraine "in 24 hours," the statement wasn’t a diplomatic promise—it was a political performance. A bold, vague declaration made to captivate and confound. As with much of Trump’s rhetoric, it was designed to provoke a reaction, not provide a coherent policy or a roadmap for actual conflict resolution. The phrase, much like a magician's sleight of hand, defies scrutiny because it was never meant to be taken literally. It was a rhetorical spell—a clever maneuver meant to hypnotize supporters, bait critics, and above all, shift the narrative in his favor.

Trump's boast wasn’t about bringing an end to Ukraine’s suffering or fostering peace. No, it was a performance—a stage upon which he could posture as the anti-war, anti-globalist statesman. In his telling, the conflict was not a tragedy of geopolitical proportions but a backdrop for him to reframe the entire narrative. Zelenskyy became the symbol of obstinance, NATO a collection of freeloaders, and Biden an overcommitted, dithering statesman trapped by his own idealism. Trump’s "24-hour solution" wasn’t about peace—it was about rewriting the terms of the debate.

The sheer vagueness of the promise was its genius. In the world of Trumpian politics, specificity is the enemy of spectacle. By leaving the solution open-ended, Trump ensured that he could never be held accountable for failure. The promise was so broad, so grandiose, that it could never be disproven. In the theater of politics, the applause comes not from delivering a solution but from being seen as the one who could deliver it. The absence of a concrete plan simply didn’t matter—because in Trump’s world, the narrative is the product. And in that narrative, Trump is always the star.

The Silence After the Palm Sunday Massacre – Strategy, Not Neglect

Perhaps the most revealing aspect of Trump’s foreign policy approach isn’t the spectacle he creates with bold statements—it’s the silence that follows. Case in point: the Palm Sunday massacre. When Russian missile strikes killed civilians, including children, in Kharkiv and Dnipro, the world reacted with revulsion. European leaders condemned the attacks within hours, as did President Biden, who called them "barbaric." Yet Trump, the man who never missed an opportunity to dominate the media cycle, remained completely mute. No tweet. No Truth Social post. Not even a press release.

At first glance, it might seem like neglect, a failure of empathy or leadership. But in the context of Trump’s broader foreign policy vision, this silence was strategic. Empathy, after all, doesn’t fit the Trump brand. Condemning the attacks would have required him to take a moral stance—something he is notably reluctant to do, especially when it might involve criticizing a leader like Vladimir Putin. Silence, on the other hand, maintains room for maneuver. By withholding judgment, Trump kept his options open, maintaining ambiguity and leaving the door cracked for future dialogue with Russia.

This wasn’t a lapse in judgment. It was a carefully calculated move. By refraining from condemning Putin or Russia’s actions, Trump avoided alienating the Kremlin, preserving the possibility of using Putin as a partner in his envisioned future diplomatic efforts. For Trump, maintaining the ambiguity of "neutrality" was a way to keep Russia within his diplomatic toolkit. Why burn bridges with a key player when there’s a chance to use them in the future? For Trump, strategic exits aren’t about withdrawing from the world stage—they’re about leaving doors open for future disruption.

Diplomacy as Spectacle: Flashy Announcements, No Follow-Through

At the core of Trump’s foreign policy is a rejection of perpetual engagement. He is not interested in long, drawn-out negotiations, complex alliances, or detailed frameworks for resolution. He believes in making a flashy entrance, delivering a showy announcement, and leaving the rest to the winds of disruption. The ultimate goal isn’t peace—it’s spectacle. Trump’s vision of diplomacy is less about sustained resolution and more about presenting a one-liner that rewrites months of conflict into a narrative of "American strength" and "deal-making dominance."

This is where Trump’s real genius lies: the ability to transform every international crisis into a performance, every diplomatic retreat into a triumph. A peace deal isn’t a treaty signed in a quiet room with months of negotiation behind it; it’s a press conference with flags, cameras, and Trump at the podium, flashing his signature grin as he delivers a one-liner that sounds like a victory, even if it’s nothing of the sort. It’s the ultimate act of branding—repackaging failure as triumph, retreat as victory.

The spectacle is what matters, not the substance. It’s about how the world sees Trump: as the man who could end wars with the snap of his fingers, the man who would make American diplomacy great again—whether or not anything was actually accomplished. Theatrics are his currency. And by positioning himself as the one who can bring swift resolution, he continues to draw attention to himself, controlling the narrative even in the absence of tangible results.

Trump’s Brand of Diplomacy: A Game of Disruption, Not Resolution

Ultimately, Trump’s foreign policy is a carefully crafted performance where disruption is the end goal. It’s about creating chaos, shifting the conversation, and placing himself at the center of the action. He doesn’t seek a resolution to conflict in the traditional sense; he seeks a dramatic shift in the narrative that leaves him as the dominant force in the room. The idea of a "24-hour" solution to Ukraine is merely the latest in a series of political stunts that make waves without leaving a lasting impact.

Trump’s foreign policy is not about building lasting peace or meaningful partnerships—it’s about controlling the spectacle, maintaining ambiguity, and leaving everyone else to pick up the pieces while he reaps the benefits of his own brand of political theater. The real question isn’t whether Trump can end the war in 24 hours—it’s whether he can keep the spotlight on himself long enough to convince the world that he’s the only one who matters. And if the war drags on, even better: it just means more opportunity for Trump to continue performing.

Rubio’s Exit Strategy – The Gentleman’s Guide to Strategic Abandonment

Marco Rubio’s recent comments on conditioning aid to Ukraine in exchange for serious concessions may seem like a radical departure from the established Republican position on Ukraine—but in reality, they are a logical progression of Trumpism’s evolving geopolitical playbook. By embracing the language of "realism" and "negotiation," Rubio is crafting a policy that allows the U.S. to extricate itself from the Ukraine conflict with the grace of a diplomat stepping away from the dance floor—while still maintaining the illusion of being a global peacemaker. In short, Rubio is perfecting the art of disengagement theater.

This strategy is not just pragmatic; it’s elegant in its cynicism, a masterclass in how to get out of a quagmire without ever admitting that you’re actually running away. The framework is deceptively simple:

Phase 1: Conditionality – Aid Becomes Transactional, Tied to Ukrainian Flexibility. The Longer Kyiv Resists Talks, the Thinner the Pipeline Becomes.

The first step in Rubio's masterstroke is to begin the slow, steady conditioning of military and financial aid to Ukraine. Instead of the traditional approach of unquestioning support, the U.S. will send the message that Ukraine’s survival hinges on its willingness to negotiate. But not just any negotiation—Ukraine must be flexible, it must be willing to make concessions, it must be realistic (a favorite word of Rubio’s new diplomatic lexicon). The longer Kyiv resists talks or demands full territorial recovery, the more aid will be reduced. In the world of diplomacy, it’s like the perfect bait-and-switch—offering the carrot, but subtly moving the goalposts so that the carrot becomes harder to reach.

For Rubio, this is not about abandoning Ukraine—it’s about creating the conditions under which the U.S. can gracefully bow out, all while claiming that Ukraine’s intransigence was the true obstacle to peace. The transactional nature of aid becomes the means of slowly withdrawing, all wrapped in the veneer of "tough love."

Phase 2: Narrative Shift – Portray Ukraine as the Intransigent Party. "We Did Our Part, But They Won’t Negotiate."

Once the conditional aid is in place, it’s time for the narrative shift. Rubio, ever the tactician, will begin framing Ukraine not as a heroic underdog but as the obstinate party blocking peace. The new narrative will subtly, yet effectively, position the U.S. as the earnest peacemaker—doing its part, showing unwavering support—but ultimately thwarted by an unwilling partner. Ukraine’s refusal to negotiate becomes the central story. "We did our part, but they won’t negotiate," Rubio will say, holding up the U.S.'s attempts at diplomacy as proof of its commitment to peace.

The irony, of course, is that it conveniently overlooks the fact that the U.S. was the one that escalated the conflict through its early, robust support. But in the realm of foreign policy, facts are often more malleable than principles. The goal here is not just to blame Ukraine but to protect the U.S. image abroad—ensuring that when the inevitable withdrawal happens, it is framed as a noble exit rather than a defeat. The beauty of the strategy lies in its ability to reframe reality: Ukraine becomes the villain in a tragic drama, and the U.S. is merely the long-suffering hero.

Phase 3: Blame Transfer – When the Public Asks Why We Left, the Answer Is: "They Chose War Over Peace."

Now comes the real sleight of hand: the blame transfer. As public opinion inevitably begins to turn, Rubio will be ready with the perfect line to justify America’s exit: "They chose war over peace." In this narrative, Ukraine becomes the ultimate scapegoat. The U.S. may have provided massive military support, but Ukraine, by refusing to compromise, sealed its own fate.

The line will serve as a masterclass in both deflection and moral high ground. By emphasizing Ukraine's supposed rejection of peace, the U.S. can sidestep any accusations of abandonment or weakness. Instead of being seen as a country that simply pulled out of a messy conflict, the U.S. is portrayed as the reluctant partner who, despite its best efforts, was ultimately rejected by a stubborn, war-hungry nation. The rhetorical brilliance lies in its simplicity—the U.S. remains virtuous, and the West is freed from the shackles of accountability.

Phase 4: Diplomatic Retrenchment – Stay in the Room But Out of the Driver’s Seat. Let Saudi Arabia, Turkey, or China Take the Wheel.

The final phase of Rubio's exit strategy involves a form of diplomatic retrenchment that allows the U.S. to stay relevant without doing the heavy lifting. Rather than leading the charge for peace, America will step aside, leaving the diplomatic steering wheel to other powers like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, or even China. The U.S. will remain "in the room," but no longer at the helm.

This phase is an exercise in the illusion of continued leadership while minimizing commitment. After all, the world doesn’t need to know that the U.S. has quietly outsourced the task of conflict resolution to other regional actors. Saudi Arabia, with its growing diplomatic clout, will be the new arbiter of Middle Eastern stability. Turkey, with its unique position straddling East and West, will be the new power broker for European security. Even China, long a neutral party in the West-Russia struggle, will seize the opportunity to present itself as a peacemaker, using its growing influence to mediate. Meanwhile, America will take a backseat, playing the role of an interested observer rather than an active participant.

This shift will also allow Rubio to claim that America has "done enough," providing a diplomatic cover for disengagement while maintaining a veneer of global leadership. The U.S. will be seen as the benevolent facilitator, letting others take the lead in shaping the future of Ukraine, all while claiming the moral high ground.

Rubio’s Strategic Exit: A Perfectly Executed Disengagement Theater

Marco Rubio is not advocating for isolationism. Rather, he is perfecting the art of disengagement theater—an elegant, calculated exit strategy that allows the U.S. to step back from Ukraine while maintaining the image of being an active global player. It is a strategy that plays to voters weary of endless foreign entanglements but still wary of being perceived as weak. By positioning the U.S. as the reluctant peacebroker, Rubio is crafting a narrative where withdrawal is framed as a diplomatic success rather than a failure of resolve.

The core objective of this strategy is not to abandon Ukraine outright but to shift from being its unflinching backer to being its broker, using the U.S. position to orchestrate a negotiated settlement while avoiding the direct costs of military engagement. In the end, the irony is hard to ignore: the U.S. may walk away, but it will do so with the glow of diplomatic righteousness, leaving others to clean up the mess—and taking no responsibility for the consequences. It’s an exit so smooth, it almost feels like a victory.

The Bigger Risk – When America Loses Interest, the World Loses Order

The situation in Ukraine is far more than a regional conflict; it is a global flashpoint that encapsulates the broader struggle between established democratic norms and rising authoritarianism. As the United States contemplates its strategic retreat from Ukraine, the world faces a profound risk: the collapse of the post-Cold War order. For nearly three decades, America has been a central pillar of global stability, promoting the principles of deterrence, sovereignty, and support for democratic allies under threat. If the U.S. pulls back now, it will dismantle the very framework that has allowed for relative peace in Europe and elsewhere since the fall of the Soviet Union.

Ukraine is not just a battlefield; it’s a symbol of what the world stands to lose—an enduring commitment to defending democratic principles and preventing the erosion of international norms. A U.S. withdrawal sends a chilling message to both allies and adversaries alike: America’s willingness to uphold these values is waning. This shift in U.S. policy will reverberate far beyond Ukraine’s borders, affecting the strategic calculations of revisionist powers eager to rewrite the rules of global order.

China Sees a Roadmap for Taiwan: Wait, Pressure, Isolate, Outlast

China has long viewed Taiwan as a critical piece in its broader geopolitical ambitions, and a weakened or distracted United States provides the perfect opening for Beijing to press its agenda. The longer the U.S. remains bogged down in Ukraine or retreats from its global leadership role, the more emboldened China will become. Beijing will recognize that the calculus of American commitment is no longer fixed. If Russia’s aggression against Ukraine succeeds without meaningful pushback from the West, China will see a clear pathway for Taiwan.

The playbook that China will likely adopt mirrors Russia’s strategy in Ukraine: wait for Western fatigue, increase economic and diplomatic pressure, isolate Taiwan internationally, and ultimately outlast any resistance. If the U.S. is unwilling to confront a major European power like Russia, its willingness to defend Taiwan, a key strategic interest in the Indo-Pacific, will be brought into serious doubt. This will embolden China to accelerate its military and diplomatic efforts, manipulating the dynamics of Taiwan’s international isolation and preparing for eventual reunification under its terms. The world will witness a fundamental shift from deterrence to appeasement, where revisionist powers no longer fear consequences for territorial aggression.

Iran Sees Space to Expand Its Reach Across Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon

Iran’s ambitions are centered around consolidating its influence in the Middle East, and a U.S. retreat from Ukraine will create significant space for Tehran to expand its regional footprint. With less American focus on global hotspots, Iran will perceive an opportunity to strengthen its hold over Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, bolstering its position as the dominant power in the region. Iran has long used asymmetric warfare tactics, supporting proxy groups and militias to project power. As Western attention shifts elsewhere, Tehran will move aggressively to deepen its ties with militias in Iraq and Syria, tightening its grip on Lebanon via Hezbollah, and potentially making inroads into Yemen.

For Tehran, the U.S. withdrawal will signal a larger retreat from the Middle East, where American military presence and influence have been key to curbing Iranian expansionism. Without robust Western resistance, Iran will likely accelerate its destabilizing activities, capitalizing on the security vacuum and further challenging the regional order. This will exacerbate tensions across the Middle East, pushing allies like Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the Gulf States to reconsider their own strategies, potentially leading to a more fragmented and insecure region. For global security, Iran’s growing reach will make it a more formidable actor, emboldened by America’s diminished resolve.

Iran's ambitions in the Middle East, despite its recent setbacks and Turkey's assertive moves, remain firmly centered on consolidating its influence across the region. While it’s true that Tehran has faced challenges—particularly in Syria and Iraq where Turkish operations have targeted Kurdish groups linked to Iranian-backed militias—these losses should not be mistaken for a loss of strategic direction or capability. Iran remains a formidable regional player, capable of exploiting shifting geopolitical conditions to its advantage.

Iran’s Resilience Despite Losses

While Iran has seen some temporary setbacks, particularly in Syria where Israeli and Turkish actions have disrupted its logistics and supply lines, it has shown remarkable resilience in adapting its strategies. In Iraq and Syria, Tehran continues to wield considerable influence through its proxy groups and militias, many of which operate in a decentralized, difficult-to-target manner. Even as Iran faces resistance from regional powers like Israel and Turkey, its ability to leverage local insurgencies, militias, and proxy forces allows it to continue exerting control over key areas, often below the radar of direct military confrontation.

Moreover, Iran’s deep entrenchment in Lebanon through Hezbollah remains one of its strongest regional assets. Despite ongoing pressure, Hezbollah continues to be a potent force in Lebanon, providing Iran with significant leverage over both Lebanese politics and the broader region. While Turkey may be asserting its influence in the area—particularly with its operations against Kurdish militants in northern Iraq and Syria—Iran's influence over Hezbollah and its direct access to Lebanon's political corridors keep it in a commanding position.

Turkey’s Moves vs. Iran’s Strategic Depth

Turkey’s increasing assertiveness, particularly in Syria and Iraq, certainly complicates Iran's regional calculus. Ankara’s military actions against Kurdish groups—many of which have been allies of the U.S. and, in some cases, have cooperated with Iranian-backed forces—introduces a new layer of competition. However, this does not fundamentally diminish Iran's long-term strategy. Turkey’s focus is largely on its own territorial security and countering Kurdish autonomy, and while it occasionally clashes with Iranian interests, the two countries share mutual concerns about Kurdish separatism and often cooperate in areas where their interests align.

Additionally, Turkey’s actions, though assertive, are still constrained by its NATO membership and the broader strategic landscape. Turkey’s current trajectory risks alienating regional partners, particularly Saudi Arabia and Israel, as well as its historical allies in the West, especially with its increasingly erratic foreign policy. Iran, on the other hand, is not as tethered to external alliances in the same way. It has cultivated a network of alliances with militias, proxy groups, and political factions that allow it to persist as a disruptive force in the region, even as it faces challenges.

The U.S. Withdrawal: A Vacuum Iran Will Fill

The potential U.S. withdrawal from Ukraine creates an even larger vacuum in the Middle East, one that Iran is well-positioned to fill. American disengagement from Ukraine would likely signal a broader strategic retreat from global hotspots, allowing Iran to act more freely in the region. The U.S. has historically played a key role in curbing Iranian expansion, particularly through its military presence in Iraq, Syria, and the broader Gulf region. Without the threat of a significant Western military presence or the influence of NATO countries, Iran will likely become more emboldened in its regional ambitions.

Moreover, without the focus of the U.S. or NATO on the Middle East, Iran’s asymmetric warfare tactics—ranging from cyberattacks to support for proxy militias—will become even more effective. Tehran has long been skilled at leveraging local conflicts and asymmetrical tactics, which are often more difficult for traditional military powers to combat. As Washington reallocates its resources toward the Indo-Pacific or other global concerns, Iran will exploit the opportunity to tighten its grip on Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, and possibly expand its reach into Yemen and the broader Arabian Peninsula.

Impact on Regional Security and Global Dynamics

The shifting focus of U.S. foreign policy will undoubtedly push regional powers like Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the Gulf States to reassess their own strategies. These nations, historically reliant on U.S. military guarantees and influence, will find themselves facing an increasingly assertive Iran. Saudi Arabia, in particular, may have to reconsider its regional ambitions and recalibrate its security strategy to account for the growing Iranian influence in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. Similarly, Israel, already concerned with Iran’s nuclear program, will likely intensify its efforts to counter Iranian influence, particularly through covert operations and diplomatic efforts to isolate Tehran.

Iran’s increasing influence will make it a more formidable actor in the region, able to challenge the existing order. As Tehran strengthens its alliances with Shiite militias, Kurdish factions, and even other regional players like Hezbollah and the Houthis in Yemen, its ability to destabilize neighboring countries will only grow. With less U.S. involvement, Iran will seize the opportunity to expand its influence, potentially reshaping the region into one more aligned with its interests. The U.S.’s waning resolve and focus on Ukraine will leave Iran in a stronger position to challenge both regional powers and global security structures, accelerating the fragmentation and insecurity of the Middle East.

While recent losses and Turkey’s assertiveness may complicate Iran’s regional strategy, the broader dynamics of U.S. withdrawal and shifting attention will undoubtedly empower Tehran to further entrench itself in the Middle East. It will exploit the geopolitical vacuum left by Western powers, particularly the U.S., and position itself as the dominant force in the region.

Russia Sees Vindication: Aggression Works, and the West Always Blinks

If the West fails to uphold its commitments to Ukraine—either through a premature peace deal or a negotiated settlement that rewards Russian aggression—Moscow will see this as an unequivocal victory for its revisionist agenda. Vladimir Putin’s Russia has long tested the resolve of the West, and a U.S. retreat from Ukraine would be seen as a resounding validation of its belief that aggression, when met with weak or vacillating opposition, eventually pays off.

This victory would not just be a territorial one but a geopolitical one. Russia will perceive that it can act with impunity, secure in the knowledge that the West will either acquiesce or be unwilling to confront it. The precedent set by a compromised Ukraine would embolden Russia to pursue further territorial ambitions, whether in Moldova, the Baltics, or even within NATO’s borders. The West, after all, has demonstrated that its commitment to defending its allies is not unwavering. Such a victory for Russia would not only weaken Ukraine but would also serve as a signal to other authoritarian regimes that aggression is a viable strategy—one that the West will ultimately tolerate, or even reward, for the sake of diplomatic expediency.

NATO Cohesion Frays, Indo-Pacific Partners Doubt U.S. Resolve, Global Institutions Lose Teeth

The broader implications of a U.S. retreat from Ukraine extend far beyond Eastern Europe. NATO, the cornerstone of Western security since the end of the Cold War, will face its most significant crisis in decades. With Washington’s diminished involvement, Eastern European NATO members, particularly those in the Baltics and Poland, will begin to question the reliability of U.S. commitments. If the U.S. abandons Ukraine, how can these nations be certain that they won’t be next on Russia’s list of targets? NATO will face internal fractures as newer member states press for stronger, more explicit security guarantees from the U.S., while older, Western European members may begin to seek more independent defense strategies.

In the Indo-Pacific, the message will be equally concerning. Allies like Japan, South Korea, and Australia will look at the U.S. retreat from Ukraine and wonder whether Washington’s resolve to defend its allies in the region will also waver. If the U.S. cannot maintain its commitment to Ukraine, how can it be trusted to counter Chinese assertiveness in the South China Sea or defend Taiwan? The reliability of U.S. security guarantees, already under strain in the face of China’s rise, will be further undermined, leading to a reconsideration of alliances and an increase in regional arms races.

Globally, the erosion of American leadership will spell the end for many multilateral institutions designed to prevent the kind of aggression currently unfolding in Ukraine. The United Nations, the World Trade Organization, and international financial institutions will lose their ability to enforce the rules-based order that has underpinned global stability for decades. The result will be a world increasingly divided into spheres of influence, with major powers like China, Russia, and Iran asserting control over vast swaths of territory, while the U.S. is relegated to one of many actors vying for influence. The implications for global governance will be profound, as the ability of international organizations to mediate conflicts, provide humanitarian aid, and regulate global issues like climate change, pandemics, and human rights will be severely weakened.

A New Geopolitical Reality

The message from a U.S. retreat from Ukraine is clear: the post-Cold War world order, underpinned by American power and commitment, is being replaced by a new, more chaotic era defined by spheres of influence. Revisionist powers—China, Russia, and Iran—will exploit this power vacuum, testing the limits of Western resolve and pushing their agendas forward. As NATO, the U.S.'s Indo-Pacific partners, and global institutions struggle with this paradigm shift, the world will find itself increasingly divided, with regional powers seeking to assert control without the checks of a coherent, unified international order. The consequences of this retreat will echo for years to come, reshaping the global balance of power in ways that will challenge the stability of nations and regions across the globe.

Policy Forecast – From Engagement to Exit: The Road Ahead

As the United States begins its gradual disengagement from the Ukrainian conflict, the geopolitical landscape is set for significant shifts. The evolving dynamics are marked by a combination of strategic recalibrations, power shifts, and emerging opportunities for both regional and global actors. This section expands on the forecasted changes, shedding light on key developments in military aid, diplomatic mediation, territorial status, NATO’s cohesion, and authoritarian influence.

Reduced Military Aid with Strings – Future Assistance Will Hinge on Ukraine’s Posture at the Negotiating Table

As Washington pivots away from its previous stance of open-ended support for Ukraine, the provision of military aid will be increasingly conditioned on Ukraine's willingness to negotiate and make concessions. With a growing segment of the American electorate and political leadership questioning the sustainability of the U.S.'s financial and military commitment, military aid will likely transition from open-ended funding to more targeted support, with clear expectations tied to Ukraine's diplomatic strategy. If Ukraine is seen as unwilling to engage in talks or to compromise on territorial issues, the flow of aid may dwindle, pushing Ukraine towards a more urgent need for diplomacy.

This shift will place significant pressure on Ukraine's leadership to demonstrate a genuine interest in peace, potentially at the cost of territorial integrity or adopting a more flexible stance on NATO membership. The U.S. will likely require assurances that any negotiation process is genuine and not merely a stalling tactic by Russia. This development could deepen divisions within Ukraine’s government and population, who remain divided on how to balance resistance with pragmatic negotiation.

Saudi Arabia as Diplomatic Power Broker – Riyadh Will Capitalize on Western Fatigue to Mediate, Hosting Peace Summits That Prioritize Stability Over Justice

As Western powers, particularly the U.S., become more focused on domestic concerns and the sustainability of their international commitments, Saudi Arabia is poised to emerge as a key diplomatic broker in the Ukrainian conflict. With its increasingly central role in Middle Eastern geopolitics and its expanding diplomatic reach, Riyadh will use its position to mediate peace talks, positioning itself as a neutral party amid the geopolitical rivalries. Saudi Arabia, with its non-aligned stance in the West-Russia-China competition, will aim to facilitate peace summits that prioritize stability over justice or territorial restoration, a framework more aligned with its broader vision for regional security and influence.

Riyadh’s willingness to engage with both Russia and Ukraine, while balancing its relations with the U.S., will allow it to broker a deal that ensures relative peace in Europe while minimizing any loss of face for both parties. This approach will resonate with regional powers like Israel and the Gulf states, who have also prioritized stability over ideological purity in their foreign policies. This diplomatic initiative will likely accelerate as the U.S. steps back, leaving a void that Saudi Arabia will eagerly fill with its own brand of multilateral diplomacy.

Rise of the Frozen Conflict – A New Status Quo Emerges: Entrenched Lines, No Formal Treaties, and Growing Normalization of Occupation

In the absence of a decisive resolution, Ukraine will likely face the grim prospect of a frozen conflict. This scenario, in which frontline positions become entrenched, will create a situation where there is no formal peace treaty, but the fighting becomes sporadic and manageable. Similar to the unresolved conflicts in places like Cyprus, Nagorno-Karabakh, and Transnistria, the situation in Ukraine may shift towards a status quo defined by occupation, border skirmishes, and international recognition of de facto territorial divisions.

The absence of a peace deal, combined with increasing fatigue from the West, will normalize the occupation of Ukrainian territories by Russia. These areas will experience growing integration into Russia’s political and economic systems, with Western nations, under increasing pressure from their own electorates, reluctantly accepting the situation as part of a new geopolitical reality. This new status quo, while not formally recognized in international law, will become increasingly difficult to challenge as Russia’s presence in these territories becomes normalized over time.

Strategic Rebalancing in Europe – Eastern NATO Members Will Push for U.S. Guarantees While Western Europe Calls for Autonomy. Divergence Within NATO Accelerates.

NATO, traditionally a pillar of Western security, will face internal friction as the U.S. moves toward a more isolationist stance. Eastern European members, who have long relied on the U.S. for security guarantees, will be deeply concerned about the future of their security in the face of a diminished American presence. These countries will likely demand stronger, more explicit guarantees from Washington, fearing that the U.S. will be less inclined to intervene should Russian expansionism continue.

At the same time, Western European powers, particularly France and Germany, will increasingly push for more autonomy in their defense strategies. This could include a larger role for the European Union’s Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) or even the development of a European military force independent of NATO. The diverging interests within NATO could lead to a more fragmented alliance, with Eastern European countries aligning more closely with the U.S. and Western Europe taking a more independent route, further complicating the overall strategic coherence of the alliance.

This divergence will force NATO to reexamine its role and future strategy, potentially prompting a shift in its foundational principles of collective defense. The challenge for NATO will be balancing the security concerns of its Eastern members while addressing the growing desire for European strategic autonomy.

Authoritarian Opportunism – Beijing, Tehran, and Ankara Exploit the Vacuum Left by America’s Strategic Retreat, Pushing Their Influence into Contested Regions

With the U.S. retrenching from global leadership, authoritarian powers such as China, Iran, and Turkey will exploit the vacuum, each seeking to expand their geopolitical influence. In Europe and the broader Eurasian region, Beijing will continue to push its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) into countries that find themselves increasingly disillusioned with Western support. The growing financial and infrastructure investments China offers will provide an alternative to the fading influence of the U.S., especially in countries like Ukraine and within the Balkans. China’s economic leverage, combined with its political support for Russia’s strategic objectives, will make Beijing an increasingly influential player in the broader European security landscape.

Iran, with its deepening ties to Russia, will continue to play a destabilizing role in the Middle East while attempting to broaden its influence in Central Asia and the Caucasus. Tehran’s engagement in these regions, paired with its strategic support for Russia, will present challenges for Western-backed governments as they attempt to maintain sovereignty in the face of Iranian-backed militias, infrastructure projects, and proxy activities.

Meanwhile, Turkey, seeking to leverage its position as a regional power, will capitalize on any U.S. absence to expand its influence over Central Asia, the South Caucasus, and the Middle East. Ankara’s diplomatic maneuvering, which blends military intervention, economic influence, and strategic partnerships, will seek to fill the gap left by U.S. disengagement. Turkey’s ambitions in Syria, its expanding role in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, and its pivot toward a broader Eurasian strategy will make it a key player in reshaping the regional order.

In this new era of geopolitical competition, these authoritarian powers will seek to solidify their control over contested regions, pursuing policies that challenge Western norms and reshape international order. They will find allies in countries disillusioned with the West, particularly those feeling abandoned by the fading power of the U.S. and its waning influence in Europe and beyond.

In sum, the future of the U.S.-Ukraine relationship, NATO’s cohesion, and the broader geopolitical landscape will be shaped by a delicate balance of power transitions. As the U.S. navigates a strategic retreat, a new order emerges, where diplomatic opportunism, regional instability, and authoritarian influence redefine the rules of global engagement. The road ahead will be marked by complex negotiations, shifting alliances, and a world where Western dominance is increasingly challenged by rising powers eager to fill the void.

The Palm Sunday Silence as Epitaph

Trump’s silence in the face of the Palm Sunday massacre—the Russian missile strikes that left civilians, including children, dead on a Christian holiday—was no slip of the tongue or oversight. It wasn’t mere negligence. It was a deliberate, calculated move, a message wrapped in the most subtle of gestures: the absence of action. The kind of silence that speaks volumes, louder than any condemnation ever could. This was a signal—a sign of what the U.S. under Trump’s vision had become: not the moral arbiter of global conflicts, not the guiding hand in moments of crisis, but rather a transactional player, here to win headlines, broker deals, and then walk away.

What Trump’s non-reaction signified was not just indifference to the suffering of innocent civilians—it was a rejection of the very concept of global leadership. The U.S., in this vision, is not here to fix the world’s ills or champion democratic values. It is here to score points, make the spectacle, and exit stage left as quickly as possible. The war in Ukraine, the humanitarian crises, the atrocities—all of these are secondary. The real performance is the management of perception. Trump, ever the showman, understood this better than anyone. In his world, action isn’t measured by results—it’s measured by attention. And what better way to maintain that attention than by refusing to engage in the very moral narrative that the world was clamoring for?

The silence, in its chilling simplicity, was an epitaph for the kind of global leadership that had once been synonymous with America’s role on the world stage. The U.S. under Trump didn’t seek to be the moral compass of the world; it sought to be the dominant force, but on its terms. It didn’t need to act. It needed to be seen as above the fray, above the need for moral clarity, unburdened by the endless complexities of international politics. Silence wasn’t a failure to lead—it was a deliberate statement that the U.S. no longer needed to take sides to be in control. It was a performance, a political choreography where inaction spoke louder than any action could.

The End of Global Leadership – A Whisper, Not a Bang

The true danger in this kind of diplomacy lies not in its boldness, but in its quietness. Trump’s "24-hour solution" to the war in Ukraine isn’t just about ending a conflict—it’s about ending the era of American global leadership with a whisper, not a bang. The grand moments of post-World War II international order, the moments where America was a beacon of democracy, human rights, and moral authority—those moments are fading into the background, replaced by a world where leadership is defined not by conviction but by convenience.

In Trump’s vision, leadership is not about taking a stand. It’s about walking away from the mess, leaving others to sort it out, all while keeping the spotlight on yourself. And in this approach, America risks losing its most valuable asset: its moral authority. What remains in Ukraine’s wake is not peace, but performance. A series of hollow gestures, calculated moves meant to impress, but without the substance that once gave them weight. The 24-hour boast isn’t an offer of peace; it’s the end of an era when the U.S. could lead by example, when its influence was built not just on power, but on principles.

In the absence of moral clarity, what remains is a world where strength is confused with indifference. America’s brand of leadership, once synonymous with the defense of sovereignty and democracy, is now tethered to a different set of values: spectacle, disruption, and the art of walking away before the consequences catch up. The cost of this strategy? A world that no longer sees the U.S. as the defender of the global order, but as another player in a chaotic and fragmented international system. The question isn’t whether Trump could end the war in 24 hours—it’s whether, in the end, America will walk away from its role as the world’s leader, leaving nothing but a legacy of empty performances and missed opportunities.

The Latest Minerals Memo – A Masterstroke of Symbolism and Paper Tiger Diplomacy

Ah, the signing of the latest minerals memorandum with Ukraine—a moment of great fanfare, a carefully crafted image of partnership that ticks all the boxes for Washington's version of diplomacy. On the surface, it's a triumph of American strategy, a reassuring handshake over minerals that are critical to the global tech and energy industries. But let’s pause for a moment, shall we, and unpack what this memo really accomplishes—beyond the glossy PR spin, the photo ops, and the feel-good language about future cooperation.

First, the memo itself is a beautifully worded piece of legal theatre. It promises collaboration on everything from the development of rare earth elements to the mining and processing of strategic minerals, which, of course, are indispensable for the global green revolution, digital infrastructure, and weapons systems. It’s the kind of document that reads like a wishlist for anyone who’s ever thought, “What would I like to get out of a conflict that’s costing billions of dollars and thousands of lives?” You’d think it’s a major geopolitical breakthrough—until you realize that the memo’s real value isn’t in its substance but in its symbolism. This isn’t a treaty or a hard commitment. It’s a non-binding handshake wrapped in diplomatic double-speak.

A Show of Support – "We’ll Help, But Don't Ask for Too Much"

Let’s be clear: this minerals memo is far more about optics than it is about action. What it really accomplishes is a well-timed PR opportunity, a symbolic display of American resolve that plays well to the base of both Kyiv and Washington. For Ukraine, it’s a reminder that the U.S. is, indeed, still in their corner. The memo says all the right things about ensuring Ukraine’s future economic recovery and promoting its integration into Western supply chains. How lovely. How noble. But wait—what’s missing? The actual concrete commitments. There’s a promise of "exploration" and "investment," but when you dive into the fine print, it’s nothing more than a vague assurance that the U.S. will consider the possibility of helping Ukraine mine things. Great. That’s exactly what a nation at war with one of the world’s largest nuclear powers needs: a vague invitation to “explore” mineral potential. It’s diplomacy for the Twitter age—bold, fleeting, and entirely without substance.

In the halls of Congress and among foreign policy wonks, there’s no shortage of nodding heads in approval. “Yes, this is good,” they will say. “We’re helping Ukraine build resilience, we’re setting them up for success post-conflict. It’s all part of a long-term strategy.” But here’s the reality: when it comes time to actually move forward with mining projects, setting up supply chains, or addressing the vast infrastructure needs in Ukraine’s war-torn east, who will be left holding the bag? Certainly not the U.S. mining companies. They’ll happily look at potential investments—just long enough to turn around and realize the political instability, corruption risks, and the tiny issue of an ongoing war might not be ideal for profit margins. The memo doesn't address these problems. Instead, it lets everyone involved pretend that Ukraine's economic recovery is something that can be magically willed into existence by a well-meaning document.

The Economic Alibi – "Don't Worry, We're Helping!"

Of course, the minerals memo provides the perfect economic alibi. As the U.S. begins to tire of its open-ended involvement in Ukraine, the memo serves as the diplomatic “I tried” card. It's an easy way for Washington to say, “We’ve done something important,” without ever committing to anything substantial. If the situation in Ukraine devolves into something more unsolvable, if NATO's support weakens, or if public fatigue sets in, the memo provides a perfect scapegoat for why the U.S. can’t just leave outright. It’s the ultimate form of diplomatic inertia: when you can’t provide material support, at least give them something that looks important enough to serve as a conversation starter.

Let’s face it—this memo is not about securing Ukraine’s future access to vital minerals. It’s about the U.S. sending a message that it is still “doing something,” even when the entire world knows that nothing of real consequence is happening. It’s a form of international virtue signaling—a fancy way to say, “We’re still here, we’re still important, and we still think you’re valuable... even if we’re not really committing any meaningful resources.” That’s the beauty of the minerals memo—it solves nothing, but it makes everyone feel just important enough to keep playing the game.

A Paper Tiger of Foreign Policy – The Memo That Won't Move the Needle

Now, let’s take a moment to appreciate the true achievement of this latest memo: it’s a paper tiger of foreign policy. It looks powerful, impressive, and full of promise—until you actually examine it under the microscope. Then it crumbles. The memo may have grandiose intentions, but it’s so laced with qualifications and loopholes that it hardly carries any weight at all. It doesn’t impose deadlines, it doesn’t promise any kind of immediate investment, and it doesn’t contain any enforceable commitments. In short, it’s the geopolitical equivalent of buying a gift for someone, then telling them, "Well, you’ll get it eventually... but don’t hold your breath."

For Washington, it’s the perfect diplomatic move. It allows the U.S. to claim it’s doing its part to help Ukraine rebuild. For Ukraine, it’s a pat on the back, a wink and a nod that says, “Don’t worry, we’re thinking of your future, too,” without ever actually delivering anything of material consequence. For everyone else watching from the sidelines—Russia, China, and the global South—this memo doesn’t change anything. It’s just another round of paper pushing, window dressing, and meaningless statements that let the U.S. pretend it's leading while it slowly backs out of the stage. The mineral deal? It’s a masterstroke of ambiguity, a diplomatic sleight of hand that accomplishes absolutely nothing, except for looking really good on paper.

In the end, the signing of the latest minerals memo with Ukraine is a perfect snapshot of modern American diplomacy. It’s a policy that provides just enough to say something has been done while ensuring that nothing truly changes. It’s the art of the symbolic gesture, packaged in a shiny veneer of progress, ready to be sold to the public as a serious step toward rebuilding Ukraine’s future—while anyone with a passing knowledge of geopolitics knows it’s nothing more than a placeholder for an administration hoping the world’s attention will move on to the next crisis.

Ukraine’s Diplomatic Pivot – Seeking New Patrons in Paris: A Calculated Shift Toward European Partners

In the midst of dwindling enthusiasm from Washington, Ukraine's shift toward France, Germany, and the UK signals a strategic recalibration in Kyiv's foreign policy—a move driven less by ideological alignment and more by pragmatism. As the U.S. begins to retreat from its once-central role in the conflict, Ukraine finds itself seeking new patrons, individuals who, though not offering the same breadth of military or economic might as the U.S., can provide significant diplomatic leverage, economic support, and most importantly, a sense of European solidarity.

The recent talks between Ukrainian officials and their French, British, and German counterparts in Paris highlight a significant pivot, one where Kyiv seems to acknowledge that its future, both on the battlefield and at the negotiating table, may not rest solely on its relationship with Washington. The discussions reveal a number of key dynamics at play, with both immediate and long-term implications for Ukraine’s survival as a sovereign state and its integration into European institutions.

The Emergence of Europe as a Geopolitical Counterweight

Ukraine’s diplomatic overtures to France, Germany, and the UK are indicative of a broader geopolitical shift: Kyiv is no longer relying solely on Washington’s leadership and is instead positioning itself within the core of the European security architecture. These European powers—France and Germany as major EU and NATO players, and the UK, despite Brexit, as a key military ally—are now emerging as the next wave of support for Ukraine. This pivot reflects growing uncertainty within Ukraine about the reliability of American guarantees, particularly in light of the evolving U.S. domestic and foreign policy landscape under the Trump administration's second term, which has indicated a shift away from permanent military commitments and open-ended support.

However, Europe’s approach is fundamentally different from the U.S.'s. While Washington has historically emphasized hard security commitments and the military aid that comes with them, the Europeans—especially the French and Germans—are more focused on diplomacy, economic stabilization, and long-term integration. This shift speaks to a reality: Ukraine may need more than just military aid to achieve a lasting peace; it needs economic resilience, a robust reconstruction plan, and the strategic positioning that comes with European partnerships.

France and Germany – The Balancing Act

For France and Germany, the calculus is not merely about altruism, but also about securing their own long-term interests in a post-conflict Europe. Both countries, while committed to supporting Ukraine, are careful not to alienate Russia entirely, mindful of their economic ties with Moscow, and the broader European security balance. Their involvement in talks with Ukraine reflects an emerging recognition that the U.S.'s role in European security is becoming more unpredictable. For France, which has historically positioned itself as the leader of EU foreign policy, a more assertive role in Ukraine gives Paris the opportunity to shape European security, positioning itself as a leader in the post-conflict rebuilding process.

Germany, meanwhile, is grappling with its own internal contradictions. It has always been averse to military escalation, but it also understands that Ukraine’s survival is paramount for the EU's geopolitical stability. Germany’s pivot toward supporting Ukraine, though cautious, is motivated by the need to avoid a larger Russian sphere of influence in Eastern Europe, which would undermine its own economic and security interests. The Ukrainian talks in Paris are, therefore, a balancing act—one that demonstrates the desire to keep the transatlantic alliance intact while carving out a more independent European strategy.

The UK’s Role – The ‘Special Relationship’ Takes on New Meaning

While Brexit has shifted Britain’s formal role in EU matters, it has simultaneously elevated the UK's importance in Ukraine's diplomacy. The British government, under its current leadership, has been one of the most vocal and active supporters of Ukraine’s defense, primarily through the provision of weapons, intelligence, and military training. The UK’s close involvement with Ukraine has been framed as part of a broader strategy to counter Russian aggression and to enhance Britain’s standing as a global leader in European defense.

The discussions with Ukrainian officials in Paris reflect the UK’s willingness to continue to exert influence outside the EU’s formal structures, capitalizing on its strategic importance within NATO and its defense alliances. London’s ability to offer Ukraine advanced military technology, cyber capabilities, and non-EU financial aid will remain crucial in maintaining Ukraine’s resistance, even as the U.S. seeks to disengage. Britain’s willingness to lead in military strategy, coupled with its emphasis on a strong NATO, may well position it as a critical partner in Ukraine’s continued defense and eventual recovery.

The Quest for Independence – Ukraine’s Long-Term Strategy

From Kyiv’s perspective, this strategic pivot toward Europe is not just about securing immediate military aid or economic support; it’s about building autonomy from Washington and embedding itself firmly within European structures. Ukraine’s discussions with France, Germany, and the UK signal a desire to move away from being solely a U.S. proxy in this conflict and instead position itself as an active participant in European security policy.

Kyiv’s increasing diplomatic activity with European powers also ties into its aspirations for eventual EU membership. While it is still far from joining the EU, these discussions allow Ukraine to make itself an indispensable part of Europe’s future. The longer the war continues, the more Ukraine will push for political integration with the EU as a form of guaranteed security. This EU pathway is an effort to not only rebuild the country post-conflict but also to create a structure in which it is less reliant on the U.S. and its inconsistent leadership and more reliant on the collective power of European institutions.

The Likely Outcomes: Short-Term Stability vs. Long-Term Uncertainty

Over the short term, Ukraine will likely receive more military aid from Britain, France, and Germany, as well as financial assistance tied to reconstruction efforts. However, the scale of this assistance may be more limited than what the U.S. has provided, especially in terms of advanced weaponry or direct military engagement. Ukraine will have to navigate the diplomatic subtleties of European reluctance for heavy military intervention, balancing this with its need for continued arms supplies.

While France, Germany, and the UK are united in their opposition to Russia’s invasion, their longer-term goals may diverge. France and Germany might prioritize negotiations with Russia, even if it means compromising Ukraine’s territorial integrity, while the UK will continue to focus on a more hardline approach. This divergence could create tensions within the EU and NATO over how to handle the post-conflict settlement.

As Ukraine shifts its focus to European patrons, its long-term strategy will likely center around a more formalized pathway to EU membership. This, however, will be a difficult road, as the EU is far from unified in its willingness to expand. While France and Germany are generally more open to this idea, Eastern European countries, especially those with historical grievances against Russia, might push for more concrete commitments on security and stability before granting full membership.

A New, Uncertain Path Forward

Ukraine’s growing ties with France, Germany, and the UK, while signaling its shift toward Europe, also reflect the reality that Kyiv is hedging its bets as the U.S. pulls back. This pivot has profound implications for both Ukraine and the broader geopolitical landscape. It signals that Kyiv is trying to reduce its dependence on Washington and embed itself within the European order.

However, the path forward is fraught with challenges, especially given the varying interests of Ukraine’s European partners. While Kyiv’s ambition to solidify its place in Europe is clear, the ability to balance its security needs with the demands of European pragmatism will be critical in determining its long-term fate. The outcome will likely be a delicate balancing act between military aid, political integration, and a delicate peace with Russia that may or may not be acceptable to a war-weary Ukrainian public.

U.S. Strategy in the Iran Talks – A Complex Dance with Russia and the Pivot from Ukraine

The recent developments surrounding the U.S.-Iran negotiations have taken a sharp turn, with Russia’s increasing involvement in these indirect talks. What initially seemed like a series of disjointed, reactive decisions—partly a consequence of America’s focus on Ukraine and its broader foreign policy fatigue—now appears to be part of a more deliberate strategy to bring Russia into the fold. This is no mere coincidence. The optics surrounding these talks, the role of Russia, and the narrative coming out of Washington all suggest a complex geopolitical maneuver, blending realpolitik with calculated optics.

The Optics of U.S.-Iran Talks: The Accidental Broker?

On the surface, the U.S. pivoting toward Russia as a key player in the indirect talks with Iran is a spectacle that could easily be mistaken for diplomatic chaos. For Washington, having to rely on its historical adversary—Russia—raises serious questions. The Biden administration's earlier stance on both Iran and Russia was one of clear opposition: sanctions, containment, and isolation. So, what’s changed?

First, we must consider the optics of the situation. For Tehran, being brought to the table with the U.S. via Russia’s involvement is not just a diplomatic victory; it’s a strategic win. Russia, always keen to insert itself into global negotiations and exploit America’s declining influence, now finds itself as a critical intermediary between Washington and Tehran. For Iran, this doesn’t signal weakness on the part of the U.S.; it signals a return to diplomacy—a diplomatic return that Iran has long been craving but could never achieve on its own terms. Russia’s involvement creates a veneer of legitimacy and political balance. Moscow’s role allows Iran to claim it is not isolated, and more importantly, it signals to the world that Tehran’s strategic importance is recognized globally.

For the U.S., the optics are far less favorable. Russia's central role casts a long shadow over America's position as the leader of the free world, pushing the narrative that Washington no longer holds the reins of international diplomacy. The U.S. is now essentially reduced to playing second fiddle in a deal where Russia, not the U.S., calls many of the shots. The U.S. could argue that it’s "facilitating" negotiations, but the optics of the situation suggest otherwise: Moscow is the broker, Washington is the reluctant participant.

Russia’s Role Going Forward – An Irreplaceable Mediator?

Russia’s involvement in the negotiations with Iran is far from an accidental development. This is not simply a case of "taking advantage" of U.S. distractions over Ukraine. This is a strategic move on Moscow’s part, and it was likely part of a broader plan all along. Russia has long been in Iran’s corner, providing both military and economic support in key areas like Syria, nuclear development, and regional influence. Russia's involvement is a natural extension of its broader Middle Eastern strategy, in which it positions itself as a counterweight to U.S. dominance and as a regional power broker.

For Moscow, a diplomatic breakthrough with Iran—where Russia is the key interlocutor—affords several advantages. First, it undermines U.S. influence in the region, especially considering the long-standing U.S. policy of isolating Iran. Russia has long looked for ways to peel away U.S. influence in areas of mutual interest, and here it sees an opening. If Russia can act as the facilitator of an Iran-U.S. deal, it reasserts its relevance in global diplomacy, particularly as an alternative power broker in a multipolar world.

On the U.S. side, it’s important to ask whether this involvement was driven by Russian demand or whether it’s a pivot in U.S. strategy. Given the U.S. reluctance to move quickly on the Iran issue, it’s likely that Russia's involvement was not a demand but rather an opportunity Russia seized to wedge itself into the negotiations. Moscow is always looking for a chance to disrupt American hegemony, and Iran represents an area where it can both boost its international profile and directly challenge Washington’s narrative.

The Pivot from Ukraine – A Strategic Move or a Trumpian Con?

The role of Ukraine in this grand diplomatic theater is also critical. With the U.S. increasingly distracted by Ukraine and its own domestic political turmoil, the Ukraine conflict has become both a geopolitical and diplomatic excuse for Washington’s increasing inability to control the global narrative. Trump’s "24-hour peace" boast, however performative, seems to be part of a broader strategy to recalibrate U.S. foreign policy—a policy that turns away from direct involvement in complex regional conflicts like Ukraine and pivots toward deals that make the U.S. appear active without taking the risks associated with full commitment.

Was this pivot part of a larger Russian demand, or was it an opportunistic U.S. strategy? Given how the U.S. has been dragging its feet on the Iran issue, it's likely the pivot was part of a larger pre-existing strategy, but one that Russia was more than happy to exploit. From a U.S. domestic political perspective, this pivot helps Trump maintain his image as a dealmaker—a leader who is working behind the scenes to resolve multiple global issues, from Ukraine to Iran, with minimal direct involvement. Trump’s willingness to throw support behind a rapidly-changing diplomatic narrative, one that places Russia in the center of U.S.-Iran talks, reinforces his positioning as the "outsider" who gets results, regardless of the traditional means of diplomacy.

However, this shift also raises serious questions about whether Trump is truly prepared to follow through on any of these "deals." Is he genuinely seeking a diplomatic solution, or is this just another stage for the Trumpian performance? His diplomatic strategy has historically leaned heavily on spectacle, and this latest Iran development may simply be more of the same. The tough talk about "24-hour peace" and "ending wars in a day" always carried a whiff of incredibility—this may be no different. Trump’s moves in the Iran talks could very well be designed to create a semblance of progress without actually committing to anything of substance.

The Crumbling of Trump’s Tough Talk – U.S. Prepared to Lose Face?

Despite the U.S.'s military and economic power, Trump's rhetoric, particularly when it comes to confronting Iran and Russia, is beginning to fray at the edges. Trump's aggressive posture during his first term was built around the idea that he could intimidate adversaries into submission, often by making hyperbolic threats and invoking the U.S.'s "strength." But the reality of global diplomacy, especially when facing both a resurgent Russia and a determined Iran, has proven far more complex.

As the talks with Iran progress (albeit indirectly), Trump’s "tough talk" is beginning to ring hollow. This is not just because of military or economic weakness but because of the shifting balance of global power. Russia and Iran are no longer isolated or weak—they are strategic players in their own right. The U.S., burdened by overextension in Ukraine, is realizing that it cannot afford to maintain its tough-guy persona without consequences. Washington’s inability to extract significant concessions from Tehran, and its reliance on Russia as a mediator, risks undermining the very narrative of strength that Trump has cultivated.

Will the U.S. lose face? In some respects, it already has. By allowing Russia to take the lead in negotiations, Washington is implicitly admitting its inability to resolve the issue on its own terms. The domestic fallout from this could be significant, as it signals to the American public—and to U.S. allies—that Washington’s dominance in global diplomacy is no longer a given.

A Shifting Paradigm

The role of Russia in U.S.-Iran talks represents a pivot in global diplomacy that signals an erosion of American leadership in the Middle East. Whether this is part of a Russian demand or a calculated U.S. shift, the result is the same: the United States is no longer in control of its own narrative in these negotiations. Trump’s tough talk façade is cracking, and the U.S. may be forced to accept a compromise that involves losing face to Tehran. As the balance of global power shifts, the U.S. is caught between a rock and a hard place, with Russia now a key player in a process the U.S. hoped would be under its control. Whether this marks the end of America’s role as the primary global broker or simply another chapter in a changing world order remains to be seen.

Saudi Arabia's Role in Mediation: A Continuing Trend, But With Shifting Focus

Saudi Arabia’s trajectory as a diplomatic power broker is one of calculated ambition. The kingdom has long understood that its stability and influence hinge not just on its oil wealth, but on its ability to navigate the intricate web of regional and global diplomacy. With the U.S. increasingly stepping back from direct involvement in the Middle East, particularly after the chaotic end of the Afghanistan conflict and its gradual disengagement from the broader region, Saudi Arabia is positioning itself as a leader in regional stability.

Historically, Saudi Arabia has served as a mediator in several key conflicts, whether in Yemen, Sudan, or as a go-between in the complex sectarian disputes between Sunni and Shia factions across the Gulf. These efforts were generally in line with the kingdom’s goal of preserving regional security and maintaining its status as a linchpin in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). But with U.S. retrenchment, Saudi Arabia has seen an opportunity to expand its role, not just within the Gulf but on a global scale. Riyadh, once solely reliant on American security guarantees, has strategically strengthened its ties with Russia, China, and other regional powers, especially Iran, to balance against American influence.

This evolving role is particularly evident in Riyadh’s recent diplomatic overtures in the context of the ongoing Iranian nuclear talks. Saudi Arabia, as a neighbor to Iran and a key player in the Sunni axis, has an acute interest in the outcome of the U.S.-Iran negotiations. Riyadh’s mediation efforts are not simply about facilitating dialogue between warring parties; they’re also about preserving its own position within the regional power hierarchy. By hosting talks, whether directly or indirectly, Saudi Arabia solidifies its influence as a peace broker, further embedding itself into the Middle Eastern diplomatic fabric and positioning itself as an independent actor that can chart its own course outside of Washington's shadow.

But this shift also reflects a strategic recalibration. With the U.S. distracted by Ukraine and increasingly tired of its own foreign entanglements, Saudi Arabia’s role as a mediator becomes not just opportunistic, but essential. The kingdom has shown that it can walk a tightrope between managing its alliance with the U.S. and cultivating strategic relationships with Russia, China, and Iran. Whether mediating between rival factions in Yemen or facilitating talks between Tehran and Washington, Saudi Arabia is proving that it can navigate the shifting tides of international diplomacy with finesse. However, its rise as a power broker isn’t entirely without risk. As Riyadh continues to cultivate relationships with adversaries of the West, it will have to balance its desire for independence with its longstanding reliance on American security assurances.

Thus, while U.S. involvement in the Middle East wanes, Saudi Arabia’s role as a mediator is far from being extinguished. In fact, it’s likely to grow more pronounced, with Riyadh positioning itself as a central figure in resolving regional crises that may have once been seen as exclusively in the U.S.'s domain.

The Putin-Trump Meeting – Will It Still Happen in Saudi Arabia?

The prospect of a Trump-Putin summit in Saudi Arabia is both tantalizing and fraught with complexity. From the outset, this meeting was pitched as a grand gesture—a diplomatic reset between two of the most unconventional leaders of the 21st century, both of whom have drawn criticism from traditional U.S. foreign policy elites. Saudi Arabia, always eager to leverage its position as an energy powerhouse and a key regional actor, would stand to gain tremendously by hosting such a high-profile meeting.

For Russia, the summit in Saudi Arabia could be a golden opportunity to solidify its position as a global power broker. Russia’s increasing role in international diplomacy, particularly in the Middle East, has been a key focus for Vladimir Putin. Hosting the Trump meeting in Saudi Arabia would place Moscow in the unique position of not only being a participant in high-level talks but also in guiding the international narrative surrounding those talks. It would underscore Russia's centrality in the geopolitics of the region and its broader ambitions to challenge the U.S.’s dominance.

For Trump, the meeting represents more than just another diplomatic spectacle. It’s a calculated move to consolidate his image as the outsider, the dealmaker who is able to "cut through the noise" and deliver results in a manner that appeals to both the American public and global leaders. The Trump-Putin meeting, particularly in Saudi Arabia, could serve as a sign of a new era in U.S.-Russia relations, one that seeks less confrontation and more pragmatic cooperation. But the symbolism of such a meeting cannot be ignored: Trump, a former U.S. president, meeting with a Russian leader whose country’s actions in Ukraine have made it a pariah in the West, would inevitably draw criticism. To many, it would signal a softening of U.S. policy towards Russia at a time when American leadership is already under scrutiny due to its handling of the Ukraine war and its shifting focus to Asia.

But Saudi Arabia's role in facilitating this meeting isn’t purely about serving as a neutral host. Riyadh, which has long balanced its relations with Washington and Moscow, is increasingly looking to place itself at the center of global diplomacy. Hosting a Trump-Putin summit would elevate the kingdom’s standing on the world stage, reinforcing its narrative as a stabilizing force in the Middle East and a necessary partner for both the U.S. and Russia. The optics of such a meeting would send a clear message: Saudi Arabia, not Washington, has the diplomatic chops to bring global powers to the table.

However, this isn’t without its challenges. Given Trump’s unpredictable nature and the increasing volatility of U.S.-Russia relations, Saudi Arabia must be cautious. While it can certainly benefit from playing host, the kingdom will need to carefully navigate the diplomatic fallout, both domestically and internationally. The risks of being caught in the middle of a geopolitical tug-of-war between Washington and Moscow could outweigh the benefits of hosting such a high-profile event.

The Future of U.S.-Russian Relations – More Than Just a Summit

The diplomatic dance between the U.S. and Russia is far from a mere matter of summits and symbolic gestures. It’s a struggle for global influence, with both powers looking to secure their interests in a rapidly changing world order. The proposed Trump-Putin summit in Saudi Arabia represents the latest chapter in this complex relationship, one where Moscow continues to chip away at U.S. dominance in the Middle East and beyond.

From the U.S. perspective, the idea of partnering with Russia to broker a deal—particularly in the context of the Iran nuclear talks—might seem like a strategic retreat, but it’s not necessarily a departure from the core principles of U.S. diplomacy. Rather, it reflects the uncomfortable reality that in a multipolar world, the U.S. cannot always expect to call the shots unilaterally. By bringing Russia into the fold, the U.S. is signaling a willingness to cooperate with its adversaries, but this shift risks undermining the very concept of American exceptionalism that has been central to U.S. foreign policy for decades.

For Russia, this evolving dynamic presents both an opportunity and a challenge. While it welcomes the chance to assert itself as a global power broker, Russia must also navigate the complexities of working with a former superpower with whom it has a long history of competition and conflict. The challenge for Russia will be to maintain its influence in the negotiations without appearing to be a subordinate actor, especially in the face of growing European and Asian skepticism about its actions in Ukraine and elsewhere.

In the long run, U.S.-Russia relations will likely continue to shift in ways that are less about ideological confrontation and more about pragmatic cooperation. As Russia asserts itself in the Middle East and Asia, the U.S. will be forced to recalibrate its approach, making strategic concessions in order to maintain some semblance of influence. This recalibration doesn’t mean abandoning the U.S.’s role as a global leader, but rather recognizing that Russia, Iran, and other global powers have become indispensable players in the new world order.

Change is in the Air

In a world where the U.S. is increasingly withdrawing from direct involvement in regional conflicts and its leadership is called into question, Saudi Arabia's growing role as a diplomatic mediator, the potential Trump-Putin summit, and the broader U.S.-Russia-Iran negotiations signal a dramatic shift in the balance of global power. As Washington rethinks its role on the world stage, Saudi Arabia is positioning itself as a key player in shaping the future of international diplomacy. Whether this results in a new era of cooperation between the U.S. and Russia, or simply a fleeting diplomatic moment, the shifting paradigms of power are clear: the U.S. no longer dictates the global narrative, and regional powers like Saudi Arabia are eager to fill the void.

The question now is not whether Saudi Arabia will remain a key player in future global talks—it’s how far Riyadh will go in asserting its influence as a mediator in an increasingly multipolar world.

Capitalizing on U.S. Strategic Retreat: Stepping Into the Void

Ah, the diplomatic vacuum: a deliciously sweet opportunity for any power looking to rise from the rubble left by others' indecision. While the U.S. has been grappling with the whiplash of domestic priorities, a distracted foreign policy, and increasing isolationist sentiments, Saudi Arabia watches the landscape and smells an opportunity like a predator on the hunt. After all, who else can manage the delicate balance of being "friendly" with Moscow, "concerned" with Ukraine’s plight, and "neutral" in ways that are more than a little self-serving?

Let’s face it—no one wants to be the one left holding the bag after the U.S. calls it quits. But this is precisely the position in which Saudi Arabia finds itself poised to succeed. Washington’s wobbling on Ukraine—balancing between moral high ground and strategic exhaustion—creates an opening for Riyadh to insert itself as the peacebroker who has no interest in public outcry or deep moral commitments. What Riyadh does want, however, is influence, power, and access to all the players involved.

It’s a smooth play. The U.S. is tired of the war, and Europe can’t keep the momentum going without a massive, prolonged commitment to Ukraine’s defense. That’s when Saudi Arabia steps in, with its financial resources, access to energy, and newly redefined status as a "neutral" mediator in the conflict. After all, when the U.S. makes its departure, there’s no one left to handle the awkwardness of balancing the demands of both the West and Russia. Saudi Arabia can step into the space without the heavy burden of moral clarity, instead playing the game like an unflappable, unbothered diplomat who knows that peace—at least on the surface—doesn’t have to be a moral decision.

The U.S. may have shown moral leadership at one point, but that leadership was often defined by its inconsistencies, and that’s precisely what Saudi Arabia will capitalize on. As the world’s greatest energy supplier with vast geopolitical influence, Riyadh’s brand of diplomacy is suited to the new world order: one where pragmatic solutions and quiet power moves take precedence over moral posturing and misplaced idealism. By positioning itself as the one country that can bring Moscow and Kyiv to the same table, Saudi Arabia presents itself as the peaceable, resource-rich, and indispensable player the world never knew it needed.

Diplomatic Leverage Through Economic and Energy Strategy

Let’s not kid ourselves—energy is the currency of the modern world, and Saudi Arabia knows it better than anyone. While the U.S. frets over Russian sanctions, Chinese encroachment, and the growing energy crisis in Europe, Saudi Arabia is sitting pretty with its vast oil reserves, and it knows exactly how to use them. The beauty of Riyadh’s position is that it doesn’t need to overtly involve itself in the intricacies of Ukraine’s borders or the morality of Russian aggression. Instead, it can use energy as the velvet glove that drives every diplomatic interaction.

Europe is being smothered by energy shortages, and while the U.S. can send some diplomatic messages, it can’t really send enough liquefied natural gas (LNG) to replace what Russia used to supply. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia, with its OPEC+ connections and a wealth of oil resources, can step into this energy vacuum like a prince walking into a banquet hall. It can offer deals to Ukraine in exchange for peace talks, suggesting that oil supplies will stabilize should Kyiv agree to certain conditions in a peace process brokered by Riyadh. To Europe, Saudi Arabia can dangle the carrot of consistent oil supply in exchange for support in the broader geopolitical dialogue on Ukraine.

But even more brilliant is the quiet game that Riyadh can play here. By engaging in these energy deals with Russia, as it already has with OPEC+ cuts and Russian cooperation, Saudi Arabia can hold the cards for both sides of the equation. It can tell Russia that continued support for a prolonged conflict in Ukraine will only harm energy markets, while offering Ukraine the possibility of energy deals that would help rebuild the war-torn country. All the while, Riyadh is maintaining its impartial image—an image that allows it to broker peace talks without ever really getting its hands dirty.

The irony of it all is that while the West and Russia bicker about the future of the global order, Saudi Arabia is quietly pulling the strings behind the scenes. The U.S. may have stumbled with its insistence on moral clarity, while Riyadh understands that peace—and indeed, power—are best achieved when you don’t get bogged down in the details of who did what to whom. After all, energy is not just about what you sell; it’s about the power to sell it when and where it counts.

Strengthening Relations with Russia: A Long-Term Play

Russia, once seen as the U.S.’s archenemy, is now increasingly finding itself on the outs with the West. But instead of isolating Russia entirely, Saudi Arabia is choosing to cozy up, keeping the Kremlin within its orbit without the baggage of Western sanctions. This is where the real magic happens—Saudi Arabia doesn’t just need to be on Russia’s good side for short-term benefits; it wants a long-term relationship that extends well beyond energy deals.

This is not a case of "a temporary alliance of convenience." Saudi Arabia is constructing a diplomatic relationship with Russia that looks long-term in nature. Saudi Arabia, with its oil influence and diplomatic credibility, understands that Russia—despite its economic stagnation and military struggles—still has significant geopolitical reach, particularly in the Middle East and Central Asia. By working to bolster Russia’s international standing, Saudi Arabia can create a diplomatic framework that balances competing interests in the region.

So why now, and why Russia? The timing is ideal. The U.S. has, at best, a strained relationship with Russia, mostly defined by sanctions and political squabbles. The Europeans are divided. Meanwhile, Russia is increasingly isolated on the global stage, but it still has plenty of cards to play in energy markets, military matters, and the growing Chinese sphere of influence. Saudi Arabia can work with Russia to continue to challenge the unipolarity of American dominance, positioning itself as the neutral party and Russia’s steady diplomatic partner.

The next step for Saudi Arabia is ensuring that it can keep the lines of communication open between Russia and the West while positioning itself as the most reliable power broker in the region. In essence, it’s not about choosing between Russia and the West—it’s about positioning itself as the middleman who can simultaneously maintain access to both. And with Russia, as its close ally in the OPEC+ alliance, Saudi Arabia is positioning itself as an even bigger player in energy geopolitics, letting the West chase its tail while Riyadh sits at the head of the table.

Appealing to Kyiv and the West: Offering an Alternative to Washington’s Heavy-Handed Diplomacy

Ukraine is caught in a delicate dance between its need for Western support and its own internal instability. And as the U.S. shifts its attention away from the Ukrainian conflict, Kyiv may find itself looking for a new diplomatic champion. Enter Saudi Arabia, with its cool, unflustered diplomatic demeanor and lack of any real baggage tied to Western moralism. Unlike the U.S., which has historically thrown its weight behind Kyiv in a very public and highly polarized fashion, Saudi Arabia knows that diplomacy is better served with calm, backroom deals and strategic positioning.

Ukraine, battered by years of war, may find Saudi Arabia’s approach far more palatable than Washington’s bombastic rhetoric. What Ukraine needs right now is less chest-thumping and more practical, actionable support. Riyadh can offer that—both by facilitating peace talks and, importantly, by offering the possibility of future economic support in the form of oil deals, infrastructure investments, and economic revitalization. While the U.S. and Europe bicker about how to send more aid or set up new sanctions, Saudi Arabia can offer a vision of stability—and a future where Ukraine, with the kingdom’s help, can rebuild.

The real irony here is that while Washington is still figuring out how to spin a narrative about “standing with Ukraine,” Riyadh can sit at the table with Russia, Ukraine, and the West, offering a non-committal “peace with benefits” approach that ensures it comes out ahead. No harsh rhetoric, no grandstanding—just a series of well-timed oil shipments, strategic investments, and quiet words of wisdom. It’s almost like Riyadh is reminding the U.S. that, sometimes, diplomacy isn’t about how loud you shout but how skillfully you whisper.

Reasserting Influence Over the Middle East and Asia: Reaffirming Leadership in a Multipolar World

The geopolitical structure is evolving, and Saudi Arabia is playing a pivotal role in shaping the new order. As the U.S. retrenches and China rises as a dominant force in Asia, Saudi Arabia is positioning itself to lead a new multipolar world. It understands that the future isn’t about keeping the West on top of the pyramid; it’s about making sure Riyadh is at the center of everything, or at least with its hand on the global steering wheel.

By working with both Russia and China, Saudi Arabia can establish itself as the ultimate regional influencer in the Middle East while maintaining deep economic ties to Europe and the U.S. This balancing act is exactly what Saudi Arabia excels at—never committing fully to one side but always ensuring that its interests are at the forefront of any conversation. Riyadh can offer itself as a counterbalance to American power, positioning itself as the gatekeeper between the West and the East.

As the Middle East continues to shift away from U.S. dominance, Saudi Arabia’s ability to play both sides and maintain an aura of neutrality gives it an edge that many countries can only dream of. In a multipolar world, it’s the ones with the most leverage—energy, trade, military access, and religious authority—that hold the real power. And Saudi Arabia knows this well.

The Soft Power of Religious Diplomacy: Saudi Arabia as the Moral Center

Ah, yes, the ultimate diplomatic trump card: the soft power of religion. Saudi Arabia’s status as the custodian of Islam’s two holiest cities gives it an unparalleled moral authority in the Muslim world—and, perhaps, beyond. By invoking the language of peace, forgiveness, and unity, Riyadh can present itself not just as a power broker in geopolitical terms but as the only force that can bring about true reconciliation, both in the Middle East and in the broader global context.

This isn’t just about managing energy or broker deals between Russia and the U.S.; this is about positioning Saudi Arabia as the only legitimate moral authority in a region torn apart by conflict, political manipulation, and competing ideologies. By framing peace talks as a religious, almost spiritual act, Riyadh can appeal to the higher angels of both Islamic and global diplomacy. What’s more, it can highlight its role as the arbiter of fairness and unity, a role few others can even pretend to assume.

In a world where much of diplomacy is conducted through the cold, calculating language of realpolitik, Saudi Arabia’s religious diplomacy offers a unique counterbalance. The fact that it doesn’t have to lean heavily on moral high ground—or even actually make any tough decisions—only makes it more appealing. While the West flounders with its moral inconsistency and the U.S. struggles to balance its strategic goals with humanitarian concerns, Saudi Arabia quietly slips into the role of global peacekeeper, offering the perfect blend of religious legitimacy, economic power, and geopolitical savvy.

As the U.S. fumbles through a retreat from Ukraine, Saudi Arabia is stepping into the breach. With an iron grip on energy, deep pockets, a gift for diplomatic theatrics, and the soft power of religion, Riyadh is emerging as the ultimate peace broker of a fractured world. The irony? Saudi Arabia’s diplomatic game is all about subtlety, pragmatism, and, most importantly, waiting for the U.S. to mess things up. And while America looks to clean up its global mess, Riyadh quietly takes its seat at the head of the table—calm, collected, and ever so ready to play the long game.

Riyadh’s Potential to Restart a Peace Process or Shift the Diplomatic Framework

When weighing whether Saudi Arabia will attempt to revive direct peace talks between Ukraine and Russia or craft an entirely new diplomatic framework, several key dynamics come into play.

Saudi Arabia’s Approach: Diplomacy Through Influence, Not Mediated Talks

Saudi Arabia’s increasingly influential role on the global stage has earned it a reputation for walking the fine line between power broker and neutral facilitator. Riyadh has navigated this balance with finesse, positioning itself as a regional heavyweight without committing itself to the diplomatic minefields of direct conflict resolution. The idea that Saudi Arabia will suddenly morph into a peace mediator between Ukraine and Russia is, at best, a stretch. More realistically, the kingdom will use its influence not to broker a peace deal but to shape a broader, more flexible diplomatic framework that allows it to maintain its key relationships with both sides while ensuring its own strategic interests are protected.

Why would Saudi Arabia commit to the impossible task of mediating between Ukraine and Russia? After all, it’s already playing a delicate game with Iran, normalizing relations with regional adversaries, and deepening economic ties with China. Why get embroiled in the Ukraine crisis, where any move could alienate either Moscow or Kyiv? The more likely scenario is that Saudi Arabia would position itself as an architect of post-conflict recovery, creating the conditions for future peace while keeping a safe distance from the negotiation table.

In a world where diplomacy is often measured by the number of summits attended, Riyadh will likely refrain from taking center stage in Ukraine-specific peace talks. Instead, it will lean into its role as the behind-the-scenes player—shaping energy agreements, facilitating trade, and securing the region’s future in ways that keep both Russia and Ukraine at arm’s length but at the table for broader discussions. In short, Saudi Arabia won’t throw itself into the quagmire of direct mediation but will play the part of the invisible hand guiding global interests while remaining out of the spotlight.

The Personal Dynamic Between MBS and Zelensky: An Opportunity for Pragmatic Cooperation

For Saudi Arabia, the positive personal dynamic between Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is a rare diplomatic asset. Where many world leaders view one another through the lens of long-term alliances, MBS and Zelensky seem to have a rapport that is remarkably free of ideological baggage. This relationship could be the foundation for something more tangible, even if it doesn’t directly translate into a peace deal for Ukraine.

Zelensky, desperate to diversify Ukraine’s foreign relationships as it battles Russian aggression, sees in Saudi Arabia an increasingly important partner—not because Riyadh is ready to mediate peace talks, but because Saudi Arabia can offer what Ukraine truly needs: energy diversification, investment, and post-war recovery. Let’s face it—Ukraine can only count on Western support for so long before fatigue sets in. As the EU grows increasingly weary and Washington’s commitment wanes, Zelensky is wisely looking for other sources of strategic and economic leverage. Saudi Arabia, with its vast energy resources and wealth, is the perfect candidate for Ukraine’s strategic pivot.

Zelensky, known for his ability to charm foreign leaders, can tap into MBS’s desire to cement Saudi Arabia as a regional power that extends beyond the traditional Middle East confines. MBS can offer Ukraine not just words of support but actual material assistance in ways that the West has been slow to deliver. Whether it’s energy security, economic aid, or post-war reconstruction, Zelensky may find in Riyadh a willing partner who is eager to expand its global footprint and deepen relationships outside the narrow confines of NATO and the EU.

While the personal chemistry between MBS and Zelensky may not be the stuff of fairy tales, it’s undoubtedly useful in practical terms, especially as both leaders look to future-proof their nations’ interests.

Trump’s Diplomatic Faux Pas: The Saudi Energy Proposal and the Path Forward

Diplomatic Embarrassment: Overcoming the Fallout

We can all agree that Trump’s public offer to Saudi Arabia to “take over energy oversight” in Ukraine was an unqualified diplomatic disaster. It was as though he’d walked into a highly curated dinner party, grabbed the host’s glass of wine, and announced that he would be re-organizing the seating arrangements—without consulting anyone. Zelensky’s immediate dismissal of the proposal as a nonstarter was, in diplomatic terms, nothing short of a cold slap in the face. Yet, it’s also possible that both parties, privately, are rolling their eyes over this misstep. After all, diplomatic faux pas are a dime a dozen. What matters most is whether both sides can move forward from this misstep with a shared interest in pragmatic cooperation.

In the public eye, Trump’s suggestion was a minor gaffe, perhaps one that played well to his base but fell flat on the global stage. For Ukraine, it was a moment to assert its sovereignty and reject any outside interference that smacked of patronizing Western-style oversight. For Saudi Arabia, however, the proposal was more of a distraction than a diplomatic opportunity, yet it still served as a reminder that Riyadh has enough clout to propose big ideas—even if the world isn’t always ready to accept them.

In the end, the energy oversight proposal is unlikely to leave a lasting stain on Saudi-Ukraine relations. Both countries have the pragmatism to rise above this awkward moment. The trick, however, will be for Saudi Arabia to find a way to offer cooperation in energy without overstepping its bounds or appearing to push Ukraine toward a dependency it doesn’t want. Riyadh must tread carefully, acknowledging the faux pas without letting it define the relationship.

New Spheres of Cooperation: Practical Partnerships in Energy, Reconstruction, and Security

While the energy oversight debacle was a misfire, Saudi Arabia and Ukraine have ample opportunity to build real, lasting partnerships in areas where both can benefit. The notion of Saudi Arabia swooping in to manage Ukraine’s energy infrastructure was, at best, an overzealous idea, but the reality is that the Saudis have invaluable experience and resources that could be used to Ukraine’s advantage.

First and foremost, Ukraine needs energy diversification—its reliance on Russian gas has been obliterated by the war, and Riyadh, with its vast energy resources, is perfectly positioned to help Ukraine move beyond its historical reliance on Moscow. Whether it’s through new supply chains, technical assistance, or energy infrastructure investment, Saudi Arabia could become a critical partner in Ukraine’s post-war recovery.

Second, the reconstruction of Ukraine is a monumental task, and Saudi Arabia’s deep pockets, particularly through its Vision 2030 initiative, could provide a much-needed influx of capital. Saudi investments in key sectors such as infrastructure, telecommunications, and agriculture could help rebuild Ukraine’s shattered economy. In return, Saudi Arabia gains access to an emerging market and strengthens its political and economic influence in Eastern Europe.

Finally, on the security front, Riyadh’s expertise in countering Iranian influence in the Middle East and its growing interest in security cooperation with other countries could dovetail with Ukraine’s need to strengthen its own defenses. The Saudis could offer non-lethal military support, intelligence sharing, and training that would complement Ukraine’s ongoing fight against Russian aggression, without directly challenging NATO’s role.

How Can Ukraine and Saudi Arabia Move Forward?

Given the diplomatic faux pas, the path forward will require careful navigation. But pragmatic diplomacy has always been a hallmark of both countries. Saudi Arabia will likely be content to let bygones be bygones, focusing on areas of practical cooperation—energy security, reconstruction, and trade—while keeping the political relationship between Zelensky and MBS warm but non-committal on the broader conflict resolution.

Ukraine, for its part, may be more than willing to deepen ties with Riyadh, particularly as its relations with the West enter a new phase of uncertainty. For Zelensky, engaging with Saudi Arabia is about survival and diversification, rather than political ideology or military alliances. If Saudi Arabia can offer practical support, there’s no reason for Kyiv to turn it down, no matter how embarrassing the energy oversight proposal might have been.

Moving Beyond the Faux Pas

Despite Trump’s awkward diplomatic moment, both Ukraine and Saudi Arabia are likely to look beyond the faux pas and focus on the practical benefits of collaboration. Energy diversification, reconstruction, and military cooperation provide ample ground for both parties to forge a new relationship that’s less about symbolic gestures and more about tangible outcomes. In this sense, the diplomatic hiccup might be nothing more than a footnote in what could become a deeper and more fruitful partnership between two nations that, despite their differing priorities, can both benefit from the relationship.