Trump, Putin, and Zelensky Officially Announce the Start of a Peace Process in Ukraine: What Comes Next?
In a historic and unprecedented move, Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and Volodymyr Zelensky have formally declared the initiation of a peace process in Ukraine. However, even in its infancy, the framework of these negotiations suggests a resolution built upon what can best be described as a “non-victory.” While Moscow still harbors aspirations for a grand geopolitical arrangement—a modern “Yalta 2.0”—this vision has now been rebranded as the “Riyadh Agreement.” Yet, the negotiation process itself is poised to be anything but simple.
Russia’s Key Strategic Gains
Several crucial elements define Russia’s stance in this evolving deal:
- Russia will not seek NATO membership—a nonstarter from the outset, but now reaffirmed in formal talks.
- The United States will shift decision-making authority on Ukraine to Europe, likely placing London at the helm, which could exacerbate fractures within the European Union, particularly along the Warsaw-Baltic axis.
- Zelensky and his administration will step down, leaving Ukraine politically unmoored at a critical juncture.
A major question remains whether the U.S. will ease sanctions on Russia, potentially allowing Moscow to distance itself from Beijing’s sphere of influence. Meanwhile, Russia is expected to retain control over its occupied Ukrainian territories. Crimea, a long-standing point of contention, is anticipated to be formally recognized as Russian, and territorial swaps involving the Kharkiv and Kursk regions could be on the table.
To outside observers, this may appear as a scaled-back version of Russia’s initial war aims. In reality, it is anything but.
The Aftershocks of Peace
The immediate fallout from any agreement will be a severe crisis in Ukraine. The nation, already devastated by war, is likely to plunge into political turmoil. Public sentiment will be divided between outrage toward Zelensky’s administration and a reluctant acceptance of accommodation with Moscow.
This turbulence creates an opening for pro-Russian political forces to reassert themselves. If successful, Ukraine could find itself internally fragmented, delaying its path to stability indefinitely.
Economically, Ukraine will be in dire straits. The country will require massive financial aid for reconstruction, reminiscent of post-World War II Europe. European, Turkish, and Gulf-state corporations are expected to dominate the lucrative rebuilding contracts, further indebting Ukraine to Western financial institutions. Increased reliance on European, British, and Turkish banks will, in turn, shape Ukraine’s political future.
Another pressing concern is Ukraine’s military. There is a strong possibility that a significant portion of the Ukrainian Armed Forces will be absorbed into a future European army, with units redeployed along NATO’s eastern flank. If this scenario materializes, the Kremlin will view it as partial fulfillment of its demand for Ukraine’s demilitarization.
On a broader geopolitical scale, both Washington and Moscow appear content with a weakened Ukraine serving as a counterweight to Germany and France within the EU. Ukraine’s strategic role as a transit hub for energy and goods to Europe is also expected to be restored, reinforcing its economic significance despite political instability.
Turkey, meanwhile, is likely to capitalize on the situation by advancing plans for the Trans-Caspian and Qatari gas pipelines, further diminishing Russia’s dominance in the European energy market.
