The upcoming US-Russia summit in Riyadh, set to take place in a few days, signals a multitude of critical geopolitical developments. Notably, the agenda will extend beyond the Ukrainian crisis to include other pressing regional issues, such as Iran’s nuclear program, where Moscow plays a substantial and influential role. Additionally, discussions will cover the future of the Middle East peace process, particularly in light of the dramatic downfall of the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria, Russia’s sole regional ally. Economic and security concerns, China’s role in the Gulf, and global trade routes will also feature prominently in the talks.
A striking aspect of this summit is the absence of key stakeholders affected by the war in Ukraine, including the European Union and Canada. From the perspective of US President Donald Trump, renowned for his deal-making prowess, this visit presents an opportunity to secure multiple strategic gains across various fronts—without sharing them with other actors whom he perceives as mere pawns in the geopolitical chess game. Even Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has now become part of the leverage Trump seeks to employ.
Trump’s grand strategy appears to put everything up for negotiation—from monopolizing half of Ukraine’s rare earth mineral production to redrawing regional spheres of influence in favour of Russia at China’s expense, and even exploring avenues for collaboration with Putin to revive the Arctic shipping route. This route, in Trump’s view, represents the ultimate prize, as it would slash travel time for commercial shipments between Southeast Asia, the US, and Europe by more than half. However, these manoeuvres raise serious concerns among European nations and Ukraine, fearing a US-Russia agreement struck behind Kyiv’s back. Such a deal could paradoxically strengthen Russia’s position while pressuring Europe to accept Trump’s proposed tariffs and trade policies.
Throughout his campaign and presidency, Trump has frequently reiterated his bold assertion: “When I reach the White House, I will end the war in one day.” Several months ago, Keith Kellogg, a former national security advisor to Trump, outlined a peace plan co-developed with ex-CIA analyst Fred Fleitz. The proposal suggested halting US military aid to Ukraine unless Kyiv entered peace negotiations with Moscow while warning Russia that failure to negotiate would result in increased US military support for Ukraine.
Approximately five months later, Trump, now president-elect, appointed Kellogg as his special envoy to Ukraine and Russia. In an interview, Kellogg stated, “It’s time to put the war back in the box.” However, Russian sources quickly dismissed these overtures, bluntly responding, “Kellogg will bring his plan to Moscow, we will take it, and then tell him not to bother, as we do not agree.”
Russian President Vladimir Putin appears to have little interest in a negotiated settlement that requires Moscow to make compromises, as he firmly believes Russia will ultimately win the conflict. Moscow has set forth a maximalist list of demands, including Ukraine’s permanent neutrality with no future NATO or EU membership prospects, Western recognition of Russian-occupied Ukrainian territories, the lifting of all Western sanctions, and a broader agreement recognizing Russia’s self-declared “sphere of influence.” These terms remain entirely unacceptable to Ukraine and its European allies.
Similarly, Indo-Pacific nations strongly oppose any agreement that allows Putin to claim victory in Ukraine, fearing it could embolden China to take direct action against Taiwan. Furthermore, many in the United States, including key Republican figures, would reject such a deal, as it could strengthen the growing authoritarian axis of China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia at the expense of US credibility and global leadership.
Trump has previously stated that he seeks an agreement with Putin, and while the desire for lasting peace is commendable, any such deal must be based on meaningful concessions rather than a superficial ceasefire. To achieve this, his administration must first bring Russia to the negotiating table under conditions that compel genuine compromise.
To negotiate from a position of strength, the US must exert significantly greater pressure on Russia. Trump is well-prepared to implement a strategy designed to achieve exactly that. Just as he did with Iran during his first term, he is likely to apply his “maximum pressure” strategy against Russia.
Trump’s aggressive sanctions campaign against Iran in 2018 severely weakened the regime’s ability to finance militant groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, modernize its military, and advance its nuclear program. By 2019, this policy had drained Iran’s economy, turning a trade surplus of $6.1bn into a $3.5bn deficit by 2020. However, the Biden administration’s lack of strict enforcement allowed Iran to boost its oil revenues over the past four years, with far-reaching consequences across the region.
Applying a similar strategy to Russia could force Moscow into negotiations—a scenario it currently has little incentive to consider. Moreover, such measures could impose economic costs on US adversaries like China and Iran, both of whom are crucial suppliers to Russia’s war effort. However, the fundamental question remains: would these pressures be enough to force Russia to negotiate?
Unlike Iran, Russia remains a formidable power. While Western sanctions have inflicted economic damage and prolonged military strain, Russia has adapted remarkably well. Its economy has not collapsed, and its government has not gone bankrupt. Putin has even expanded the BRICS alliance and bypassed the SWIFT banking system, while Russian oil revenues remain strong due to OPEC+ agreements.
Moreover, Russia still possesses significant advantages, including vast natural resource wealth, a large nuclear arsenal, and innovative military tactics—such as employing cheap Iranian drones and utilizing North Korean troops to alleviate domestic pressures.
Despite the severity of Western sanctions, Russia has adjusted with surprising ease. Given these circumstances, further sanctions are unlikely to yield substantial results. Consequently, Trump’s real leverage in ending this conflict will not lie in economic sanctions, which have proven ineffective in the past. Instead, his deal-making skills will be crucial in crafting an agreement that allows Russia to claim a partial victory—perhaps by retaining control over occupied territories under a framework of limited autonomy while transforming Ukraine into a neutral state.
For Trump’s administration to secure an enduring resolution, it must push for a robust and long-term strategy that prevents Russia from dictating the terms of peace. This requires unwavering commitment and recognition that preventing a Russian victory on Moscow’s terms holds significant strategic value for the US
A favourable outcome would extend far beyond Europe. Amid escalating global instability, securing lasting peace in Ukraine would send a powerful message—not just to America’s adversaries but to the entire world—that the United States has returned to the global stage with renewed strength and leadership.
Dr. Hatem Sadek: Professor at Helwan University
