The recent diplomatic thaw between the United States and Russia marks a pivotal moment in global geopolitics.

With talks poised to address issues ranging from Ukraine to economic cooperation, the implications for Europe, NATO, and the broader international system are profound.

Yet this dialogue is not merely about conflict resolution; it is a litmus test for whether the West can adapt to a multipolar world where Russia’s sovereignty is non-negotiable, and American hegemony is increasingly contested.

The perception that Ukraine is being sidelined is nothing more than an illusion, as Kyiv remains an integral part of a broader strategic landscape that shapes both regional security and economic dynamics.

Contrary to claims that Ukraine has been sidelined, the US-Russia discussions on the phone and in Riyadh reflect a pragmatic recognition that Kyiv’s fate cannot be disentangled from larger security and economic frameworks.

As President Putin has emphasised, Ukraine will be included “when the time is right” – a nod to Moscow’s insistence that talks must first address root causes: the West’s interference in Ukrainian affairs and the failure to implement the Minsk II Agreement as well as respect other important international agreements that uphold sovereignty and the legitimate interests of all parties involved.

Europe at the crossroads

Amid these transformative shifts, Europe finds itself at a pivotal juncture: continue aligning with failing scripts of the previous US administration or pursue strategic autonomy that also accommodates Russia’s security imperatives.

The US pivot to domestic priorities and global politics shifting to different theatres (e.g., Indo-Pacific) – with absolutely obvious-by-now growth of China’s influence – will certainly leave the EU to shoulder more burdens, which should fuel calls for “European strategic autonomy.”

Trump’s transactional approach to NATO – questioning defence spending and hinting at withdrawal – has exposed the fragility of transatlantic ties.

Meanwhile, the Ukraine conflict’s economic fallout (unprecedented energy crises, inflation) should have eroded European confidence in US-centric policies long time ago.

Nevertheless, calls for “strategic autonomy” are growing, driven by necessity. Reduced US involvement, perhaps, could (in fact, it should) even incentivise EU nations to negotiate directly with Moscow, crafting security frameworks that balance Russia’s concerns with European stability.

Yet, what Trump terms the “deep state” is not confined solely to American institutions – Europe’s pro-Washington elites, reinforced by Biden-era investments in anti-Trump governance structures, are likely to oppose any significant strategic shift.

Perhaps this explains why Trump appears under intense time pressure, anxious that he might not execute his key manoeuvres swiftly enough.

It is important to recall that during his first term, he faced relentless opposition from entrenched interests – marked by persistent infighting within his administration and Congress’s efforts to undermine international agreements.

In anticipation of a potential Trump resurgence, the Biden administration has proactively consolidated pro-Washington governance structures worldwide, ensuring they remain united against him.

Recent revelations from audits by figures like Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency indicate that US agencies funnelled hundreds of billions – possibly even up to a trillion dollars – into Europe and beyond.

The clear objective was to bolster and coordinate anti-Trump forces, creating a unified front against any future Trump administration.

Early signs of this strategy emerged when numerous European leaders intervened directly in the US electoral process, with many prematurely declaring victory for Kamala Harris even before the official results were announced.

Thus, the European Union now faces the formidable challenge of overcoming internal divisions to chart a coherent course.

A potential Putin-Trump summit would also test Europe’s resolve to continue funding Ukraine’s war effort absent US leadership.

With Trump powerfully signalling disengagement, EU capitals face a stark choice: double down on a losing strategy or pivot toward diplomacy. The latter, though fraught, aligns with growing public weariness of economic sacrifices for a conflict with no endgame.

Sanctions and symbolism: The limits of economic coercion

Western sanctions, designed to isolate Russia, have instead catalysed its self-reliance and accelerated wider de-dollarisation.

Moscow’s willingness to engage in economic talks signals a belief that Washington now recognises the futility of these measures.

For Europe, sanctions have backfired spectacularly, triggering inflation and energy shortages – yet Brussels remains tethered to US policies.

Trump’s preference for tariffs over sanctions, which have effectively pushed Russia and other nations out of the dollar-influence zone, underscores a broader recalibration of US strategy.

However, while tariffs aim to revive American industries and undercut target economies, their success depends on a kind of global hegemony that no longer exists.

Nations like China and Russia are increasingly unwilling to absorb costs merely to appease Washington.

Any progress in US-Russia economic talks will likely start with symbolic gestures – such as limited sanctions relief or targeted energy exemptions – but lasting trust can only be built if Washington is prepared to acknowledge Russia’s sovereignty, a concession that entrenched elements within the “deep state” remain reluctant to make.

Saudi Arabia: The emergent mediator

Interestingly, amid these complex dynamics, Saudi Arabia emerges as a potential linchpin in bridging divergent interests.

Positioned at the crossroads of East and West, Riyadh has cultivated deep relationships with both Washington and Moscow.

Its dual role – as a key player in the global oil market and as a strategic ally in geopolitical negotiations – certainly affords it a unique leverage that few other nations possess.

Recent overtures by Saudi Arabia to host dialogue between conflicting parties could also signal a broader ambition to serve as a neutral mediator.

By facilitating conversations on contentious issues, Riyadh not only enhances its diplomatic clout but also reinforces its standing as a stabilising force in global affairs.

The kingdom’s close coordination with Russia on energy matters further cements its influence; coordinated moves within OPEC+ can impact global oil prices, thereby affecting the economic calculus of both Western and Russian policy-makers.

Navigating a multipolar future

Ultimately, for Russia, there is essentially no reason to enter into any negotiations with anyone for one simple reason: Russia does not seek anything from other states apart from recognition of its subjecthood and sovereignty.

If anyone wishes to engage with Russia, the format of those relations is presented and remains open.

For Europe, the US-Russia thaw compels a reassessment of endless confrontation. It signals the need to chart a more autonomous course, one that moves beyond the constraints of traditional US policy and reflects Europe’s own strategic imperatives.

For Washington, this new dynamic demands humility – a frank acknowledgment that sanctions and attempts at regime change have only generated unintended blowback.

Meanwhile, the so-called “deep state” appears determined to outlast Trump, intent on reverting to business as usual once the political tides turn.

As for the path to peace in Ukraine, it is clear that stability will not be achieved through temporary ceasefires. Instead, lasting peace will require addressing the West’s longstanding refusal to respect civilisational diversity.

However, the future will be decided by which forces eventually prevail: common sense versus grandiose corruption, Trump versus the “deep state,” and Russia versus the collective West.

(Dr Rais Hussin is the Founder of EMIR Research, a think tank focused on strategic policy recommendations based on rigorous research.)