Do US-Russia talks on Ukraine mark a reappearance of colonial power play?

The unexpected negotiations between the United States and the Russian Federation that began in Saudi Arabia in February were strange. These off-line discussions in Riyadh, which included foreign ministers and presidential advisors from both countries, focused primarily on the fate of Ukraine and the future of European security. Yet, neither Ukraine nor the European Union, nor any of its member states, were present or in any other way involved in these purely bilateral face-to-face meetings.

Other oddities were apparent. A Ukrainian delegation, led by First Deputy Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko, had just met with Saudi Arabian officials in Riyadh on Feb. 16. This delegation was there to prepare for a visit by President Volodymyr Zelensky, who was on a previously planned trip to the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia — although the Saudi portion was canceled. Ukraine’s president and government officials were physically nearby the American and Russian negotiators, who were discussing the future of the Ukrainian state in Riyadh.

The absurdity of this situation in February illustrates the profound changes the international order may be undergoing today. The approaches of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle and the Trump administration to Ukraine do not signal a new "multipolar world." Instead, they reflect a return to the principles of the Yalta system, established during the final months of World War II.

The idea of "might makes right" that, in spite of the Allies’ triumph over the fascist axis, prevailed in 1945 seems to resurface today, as outside powers attempt to divide continental Europe. During talks at Tehran, Yalta, and Potsdam in 1943-45, Moscow was granted more East European territory than it had received before and at the start of World War II, in its talks with Nazi Germany.

In protocols to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and German-Soviet Border and Friendship Treaty of 1939, Stalin had secured Soviet control over parts of East-Central Europe, including Poland and the Baltic states. But by 1945, the U.S. had handed over the entire eastern portion of the continent to Soviet imperialism, enforced Russification, state terrorism, and colonial exploitation. To show his disrespect for the new international system established in 1945, Stalin smuggled the Soviet "republics" of Ukraine and Belarus as founding members into the United Nations.

After the collapse of the German empire in 1945, other European empires, too, lost most of their colonies. By 1989-1991, it seemed that the Russian land empire, in its communist form, had also come to an end. First, the nations of the Soviet bloc or "outer empire," and then the republics of the Soviet Union’s "inner empire," gained formal independence.

However, Moscow’s 1945-1991 mockery of international law continued, albeit on a smaller scale, after the breakup of the Soviet Union. For example, without following the regular process of application and accession to the United Nations (as Serbia did after the breakup of Yugoslavia), Russia became a permanent member of the UN Security Council, even though the UN’s statute still only mentions the Soviet Union. The Kremlin also managed to gain Western sanctioning for so-called “peacekeepers” in Moldova and Georgia, whose role was to "keep pieces" of a Russian rump-empire under Moscow’s control.

For 30 years after 1991, both the U.S. and Western Europe practiced a "Russia First" policy, where the interests of Russia’s former colonies were secondary to those of Moscow. This strange policy even meant temporarily expanding the G7 to include Russia, creating a G8 group, which — at least in the Kremlin’s understanding — reinforced Moscow’s continued status as a world and imperial power. The most scandalous example of this approach was the (abortive) Russo-German Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline project launched after, and in demonstrative disregard of, Russia’s annexation of Crimea and covert military intervention in Eastern Ukraine in 2014.

(L-R) Then-French Prime Minister Francois Fillon, then-German Chancellor Angela Merkel, then-Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, and then-European Union Energy Commissioner Guenther Oettinger turn a wheel to symbolically start the flow of gas through the Nord Stream Baltic Sea gas pipeline at a ceremony in Lubmin, Germany, on Nov. 8, 2011. (Sean Gallup/Getty Images)

In 2022, Germany and other Western European nations finally reversed their "Russia First" stance, finally recognizing the legitimacy and rationality of the interests of Moscow’s former colonies. Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia—though still partially occupied—became candidates for membership in the European Union. The driving force behind this shift was Ursula von der Leyen, the German president of the European Commission, representing a nation that once had its own colonial plans for Ukraine.

In contrast, the U.S., which itself began the decolonization process in the 18th century, seems to be today reversing its earlier liberationist stance toward Eastern Europe and its active support for Russia’s former colonies breaking free from Moscow’s neo-imperial orbit. At least rhetorically, the Trump administration appears to be returning to a Yalta-like approach, where the voices of smaller states are sidelined, and Ukraine’s participation in negotiations about its future is unnecessary.

Much of this occurs in direct or indirect contradiction to the letter and spirit of the 30-year old security assurances Washington gave Kyiv in the now infamous Budapest Memorandum. In December 1994, this historic document was signed in by Kyiv and the three depositary governments of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), i.e. the U.S., United Kingdom, and Russia in connection with Ukraine’s decision to relinquish all of its Soviet-era atomic weapons and sign the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state.

Trump’s stance also conflicts with the 2008 Bucharest NATO declaration, in which U.S. President George W. Bush entrenched a NATO membership perspective for Ukraine and Georgia, as well as with the 2008 Strategic Partnership Charter and 2024 Bilateral Security Agreement between the U.S. and Ukraine. Time will tell how far this American reversal of its foreign affairs and thus of the overall course of contemporary world history will go.

Editor’s Note: The opinions expressed in the op-ed section are those of the authors and do not purport to reflect the views of the Kyiv Independent.