The Riyadh Gambit: How US-Russia Negotiations Shape the Future of Global Power Dynamics

I. Introduction: The Grand Chessboard Revisited

The geopolitical world order is shifting yet again, this time against the backdrop of high-stakes negotiations in Riyadh between two enduring superpowers—the United States and Russia. The scheduled meeting between Lavrov, Ushakov, Dmitriev, Rubio, Witkoff, and Waltz is not simply another round of diplomatic pageantry; it is the opening gambit in what may prove to be a critical juncture in modern international relations.

This summit signals far more than a discussion about Ukraine. It is a proxy battlefield for multipolarity versus unipolar hegemony, for economic sovereignty versus extractionist finance, and for nationalist realism versus liberal internationalism. Everyone on Earth, from the American factory worker to the European bureaucrat, from the African farmer to the Chinese investor, will feel the reverberations of these negotiations.

II. The Context: A Diminished America Faces an Empowered Russia

For decades, U.S. foreign policy has rested on a hegemonic model predicated upon military supremacy, financial leverage, and diplomatic coercion. The unipolar moment that emerged after the collapse of the Soviet Union, best articulated in Charles Krauthammer’s seminal Foreign Affairs essay (1990), has now run its course.

This shift is not merely strategic but existential—it questions the very raison d’être of American hegemony. It suggests a U.S. that no longer sees itself as the global policeman, a dramatic reversal from the Wilsonian idealism that has governed U.S. foreign policy for a century.

🔹 Historical Parallel: Consider the collapse of the British Empire post-World War II. Once the world’s unrivaled superpower, Britain found itself overextended, debt-ridden, and unable to maintain its imperial commitments. The United States now faces a similar reckoning—an empire overburdened by its own reach, suffering from economic stagnation, and politically fractured at home.

Instead of an all-powerful America dictating global affairs, the past decade has witnessed the slow erosion of U.S. primacy due to:

1. Overreach in Iraq and Afghanistan, which drained both military and economic resources.
2. The 2008 financial crisis, which exposed structural weaknesses in Western financial capitalism.
3. The rise of China as a competing economic and technological power.
4. The failure to contain Russia, as evidenced by Moscow’s annexation of Crimea (2014), its economic resilience despite Western sanctions, and its continued assertion of influence over Eastern Europe and Central Asia.

The war in Ukraine was initially viewed by Washington as an opportunity to cripple Russia economically, isolate it diplomatically, and weaken it militarily. Yet, nearly three years into the conflict, these objectives remain largely unfulfilled:

• The Russian economy has adapted to sanctions, forging stronger trade ties with China, India, and Iran.
• The military-industrial complex in Russia has ramped up production, outpacing Western arms suppliers.
• Europe, rather than Moscow, has been weakened by the conflict, experiencing energy shortages, rising inflation, and political instability.

Who can deny that the European elites have bet the house on Ukraine. From the halls of Brussels to the German Bundestag, the EU has framed the war as an existential struggle against authoritarianism, one that demands both moral and financial commitments. But what if this grand wager fails?

If Ukraine collapses militarily, the entire European political establishment could unravel overnight. The ruling class—already unpopular due to economic stagnation, immigration crises, and energy inflation—has invested enormous political capital into supporting Ukraine. A decisive Russian victory would not only undermine their credibility but expose the sheer corruption and incompetence that has defined their leadership.

Case Study: The Fall of the Soviet Bloc (1989-1991)
Much like the Soviet elites of the late 1980s, today’s European ruling class has constructed a reality detached from the material conditions of its citizens. Soviet leaders continued pouring resources into their empire abroad (Afghanistan, Eastern Europe) while their domestic economy crumbled. Today, EU elites pour billions into Ukraine while European citizens struggle with inflation, energy crises, and declining wages. The Soviet system collapsed under the weight of its contradictions—could the EU be heading toward a similar fate?

Now, the United States is pivoting to a new strategy—one that seeks a negotiated outcome that minimizes damage to American interests while maximizing leverage over post-war Ukraine. The Riyadh summit is the opening move in that new game.

III. The Russian Position: A Calculated, Cold Realism

Moscow approaches these talks from a position of strength, not concession. This is evident in Lavrov and Nebenzya’s uncompromising rhetoric, which underscores key Russian demands:

1. Recognition of Russian territorial gains (Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, Zaporizhzhia).
2. Demilitarization of Ukraine, ensuring it never poses a future military threat.
3. A neutral Ukraine, with no NATO integration.

From a historical perspective, Russia’s stance echoes previous territorial consolidations that followed prolonged conflicts:

• The Treaty of Versailles (1919), where Germany was forced to recognize territorial losses after World War I.
• The Yalta Conference (1945), where Stalin secured Soviet influence over Eastern Europe as a post-war reality.
• The Potsdam Agreement (1945), which formalized territorial changes in favor of the Soviet Union.

In all these cases, territorial reconfigurations followed battlefield realities. Moscow is making it abundantly clear: Ukraine, as it was in 2013, no longer exists, and no Western negotiation will reverse that.

Moscow has masterfully played the long game, operating under an entirely different time horizon than the West.

While the West engages in reactionary, short-term political maneuvering, Russia thinks in decades. This war is not merely about Ukraine—it is about reshaping the global order to finally dismantle the Atlanticist hegemony that has dominated world affairs since 1945.

Russia understands that time is on its side:

• The West is politically unstable (U.S. polarization, EU dysfunction).
• The Western economic model is unsustainable (debt-driven economies, deindustrialization).
• The Global South is pivoting away from U.S. influence (BRICS expansion, de-dollarization efforts).

With Ukraine’s military faltering and the West increasingly divided over how to continue supporting Kyiv, Russia is in no hurry to negotiate. Why should it?

🔹 Historical Parallel: The Korean War Armistice (1953)
Stalin, much like Putin today, understood the value of strategic exhaustion. He encouraged the North Koreans and Chinese to hold out, knowing that the longer the war dragged on, the weaker U.S. domestic support would become. The same dynamic is at play today—every month that Ukraine struggles, Western resolve erodes further.

IV. The American Position: Managing Decline Without Admitting Defeat

For Washington, the Ukraine conflict has escalated beyond its intended utility. What began as an attempt to drain Russian military capabilities and entangle Moscow in a protracted conflict has now become a costly quagmire.

The Trump administration’s rumored economic demands on Ukraine—including taking a 50% cut of Ukrainian resource extraction revenues—reveal a stark truth:

• Ukraine is now viewed as an asset to be leveraged, not a sovereign state to be protected.
• Economic colonialism is replacing ideological commitments to “freedom” and “democracy.”

If these reports are accurate, this approach mirrors historical instances where great powers militarily intervene, financially exploit, and then abandon proxy states:

• The Treaty of Trianon (1920), which reduced Hungary’s sovereignty post-WWI.
• The Marshall Plan (1948-1952), which restructured European economies under U.S. influence.
• The Iraq War (2003-2011), where control of oil contracts was a primary strategic goal.

In this context, Trump’s proposed deal on Ukraine signals a shift—from an ideological confrontation with Russia to a pragmatic, resource-driven carve-up of Ukraine.

V. The Global Implications: Who Wins and Who Loses?

This diplomatic showdown in Riyadh will have far-reaching implications across the world.

1. Europe
   • The EU faces a lose-lose scenario: either it absorbs a weakened Ukraine (with massive reconstruction costs) or it loses political leverage over a country increasingly controlled by American corporate interests.
   • Germany, in particular, faces economic strain as energy prices remain high and industrial production declines.
2. China
   • A weakened U.S. position in Ukraine may embolden China to act more aggressively in Taiwan.
   • If Russia secures a favorable outcome, Beijing will view it as a precedent for resolving territorial disputes on its own terms.
3. The Global South
   • Developing nations will see this as further proof that Western liberalism is transactional rather than principled.
   • Countries in Africa and Latin America may pivot even further toward BRICS economic partnerships rather than relying on IMF and World Bank loans.
4. The United States
   • If a deal is reached that benefits Russia economically, it could undermine confidence in U.S. global leadership.
   • However, corporate interests may benefit tremendously, as the U.S. carves out economic stakes in Ukraine’s post-war economy.

VI. Conclusion: A New Era of Realpolitik

The Riyadh negotiations are not about peace—they are about power, resources, and positioning in the post-conflict world order.

Russia seeks recognition of territorial gains and security guarantees. The U.S. seeks economic concessions and a managed exit from Ukraine. The rest of the world watches, knowing that the outcome of these talks will shape global geopolitics for the next decade.

The age of ideological diplomacy is over. What emerges now is a world defined by mercantilist pragmatism, transactional alliances, and ruthless realpolitik.

And in this new order, nations that fail to leverage their economic, military, and geopolitical assets strategically will find themselves relegated to the margins of history.

If the post-World War II order collapses, what replaces it?

• A multipolar world where no single power dominates?
• A new Cold War, but this time between a fragmented West and an ascendant Eurasia?
• A technocratic, corporate-driven world order, where global elites consolidate power beyond traditional state structures?

One thing is certain: we are witnessing the death throes of the old system. The question is who will shape the new one?

[Photo by Russian Foreign Ministry / Handout]

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.