Talking peace to Moscow, Kyiv
The Jeddah deal promises a ceasefire, but can further erode the trans-Atlantic alliance
The 30-day ceasefire deal that Washington has forced Kyiv to agree to Tuesday may, hopefully, help pause the three-year-old war between Ukraine and Russia, though Moscow has been non-committal to the US plan so far. The outcome of the Jeddah talks was a given after the Trump administration hardened its stance by cutting off military aid and intelligence to Kyiv after a disastrous meeting at the White House on February 28 between Ukraine and US officials, curtailing Kyiv’s capabilities to withstand the Russian assault. The Jeddah peace package does not talk about the US underwriting Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty although it does mention that the two countries will work towards a deal on tapping and developing the latter’s mineral resources. Kyiv had little choice but to accept this transactional deal since its defences were significantly bankrolled by the US.
The implications of the Jeddah deal won’t be limited to Russia (the US will now try to sell the deal to it, though Russian President Vladimir Putin has previously spoke about not being in favour of a ceasefire) and Ukraine. US President Donald Trump’s seemingly pro-Russia stance has alienated America’s traditional allies and rocked the trans-Atlantic alliance that guaranteed Europe’s security since World War II. The UK and France recently organised summits to evolve strategies to back Ukraine, but these failed to offer a concrete plan to defend Ukraine. If Paris has fallen back on its Gaullist legacy to hint at moving out of the US security umbrella and raising a European force to secure the Continent, London, which even promised to put boots on the ground for Ukraine, has refused to back opinion that sees the US as an unreliable ally. With Kyiv now falling in line with Washington, it remains to be seen how Europe deals with its fears on Russia’s expansionist intentions.
The US’ interest in the matter has effectively crowded out other potential peacemakers, including India, which has refused to take sides in the war and has consistently spoken in favour of dialogue. New Delhi’s strategic and economic compulsions are such that a multi-polar world is in its interests. Russia has been a traditional partner and a major source of oil and defence components. New Delhi has balanced this historical relationship with its deepening partnership with Washington, which is essential for its rise as a global power. It has also built close relations with European nations, especially France and Germany, which need to be nurtured. Continuing to do all of this suddenly seems even more difficult in the context of the US’ new approach to foreign policy, not to mention trade. As complex as the situation may be, what can’t be ignored is the fact that after three years of war, any kind of peace is welcome.