What to expect from Russia–U.S. talks in Saudi Arabia: Expect nothing.

Expert view – Dmitry Rodionov

News.Az presents an interview with Dmitry Rodionov, Director of the Center for Geopolitical Research at the Institute for Innovative Development, discussing the upcoming Russia–U.S. negotiations in Saudi Arabia on March 23, security in the Black Sea, and the future of peace efforts in Ukraine.

• What are Russia’s expectations from the negotiations with the United States in Jeddah?
• To be frank, I have no expectations regarding the Russia–U.S. talks. The positions of both sides are not just different — they are diametrically opposed. In such conditions, reaching an effective and long-term agreement is nearly impossible. At best, the parties might agree on temporary measures, but even that would require serious compromise. Finding common ground when approaches are fundamentally different is extremely difficult.
• That’s why I believe the negotiations will be lengthy. Just look at the Korean War talks — they lasted two years, with active hostilities continuing throughout. Even a ceasefire wasn’t in place during those talks. The progress of negotiations was directly linked to the battlefield situation. I expect the same here: endless discussions without meaningful results. There will be meetings, proposals, working groups — some ideas will be accepted and others rejected, but even accepted terms could be violated later. For example, President Vladimir Putin’s call for a moratorium on strikes against Ukraine’s energy infrastructure was immediately ignored. (Since Ukraine continues to violate the moratorium- see below)

Yes, it was and that’s bound to be an issue at these talks

In a separate statement, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova warned that Russia may lift its 30-day moratorium on strikes against energy facilities if Ukraine continues violating it.

She accused Ukraine of carrying out drone attacks on a gas transmission station in Russian city of Sudzha in the Kursk region, and on an oil pump station in the Krasnodar region that occurred after Moscow and Kyiv accepted US President Donald Trump’s proposal to refrain from such strikes.

• What are the likely points of contention in the U.S.–Russia talks in Jeddah? Is there any room for compromise?
• The expected focus of the Jeddah talks is Black Sea security and freedom of navigation. However, the agenda remains vague. What exactly is being proposed? Another attempt to revive the Black Sea grain deal? That issue seems to be closed, and I don’t see any logic in reopening it.

The West may try to promote the idea of deploying international peacekeepers. The UK has already expressed interest in sending troops and naval forces to the region. This is completely unacceptable. Russia will not agree to foreign military vessels entering the Black Sea, even under a peacekeeping mandate. Türkiye’s position is crucial here due to its control over the Montreux Convention, which currently restricts the entry of foreign warships into the Black Sea.

At my old site, there were multiple reports concerning the Montreaux Convention. Turkey has abided by the convention. To the never ending annoyance of the US. And oh, look, there’s yet another colour revolution being carried out in Turkey?! I’m not surprised!

I’ll relink at least one, possibly two of these old reports, tomorrow or the next day.- I’m eyeing one from 2021, it’s indepth with multiple external links, one which is inaccessible as is, but, might be available via the internet archive. For now we’ll just read what it Dmitry Rodionov has stated.

Dmitry Rodionov ;

Given the current domestic situation in Türkiye, it’s obvious that Western structures — the so-called “deep state” — are attempting to destabilize President Erdoğan, whom they consider insufficiently anti-Russian. Their goal appears to be bringing pro-Western forces to power who might revise Türkiye’s implementation of the Montreux Convention. But expecting Türkiye to allow NATO warships into the Black Sea is naïve.

• Could the talks in Jeddah lead to a broader peace agreement, or will they be limited to temporary arrangements?
• Some short-term arrangements may be reached, but they will likely be short-lived. A broader, long-term peace agreement remains highly unlikely. It’s important to clarify what is meant by “peace.” There’s a dangerous trend of equating a ceasefire with genuine peace. While a ceasefire might be welcome, the key question is: what’s its purpose?

If it’s a step toward a stable, lasting peace, then Russia supports it. But with both sides holding completely opposing views, even launching meaningful dialogue is nearly impossible. Kyiv refuses to discuss recognizing territorial realities, adopting a neutral status, or accepting demilitarization and denazification — the core objectives of the special military operation. Without such discussions, what is there to negotiate?

The West wants Russia to abandon its goals. But as President Putin has said, these goals will be achieved. Without agreement on these fundamental issues, even a ceasefire loses its value. Russia is not interested in just a pause in hostilities — we seek a stable and lasting peace, achievable only by addressing the root causes of the conflict.

If the other side is unwilling to engage on this basis, then there’s nothing substantive to discuss. Yes, we can expect more meetings, more bold statements, and perhaps some short-term deals. But all of this will remain superficial and temporary.

In my view, any talk of a broader peace settlement — either in the short or medium term — is completely unrealistic.