Any deal will put US' economic interests first

Those hoping to see a quick end to the Ukraine crisis after the closed-door talks between the top diplomats of Russia and the United States in Riyadh on Tuesday should be realistic about the gulf between the wish and reality.

Although that was said to be part of the agenda of the meeting, to repair the long-stalled relations between Moscow and Washington, and recover bilateral economic and trade relations between Russia and the US seem to have been the focus of the talks that lasted for about four and a half hours, with both sides saying the discussions were "not bad".

There should be no doubt now about the extraordinary about-face in the US' Russia policy under the Donald Trump administration, which is apparently not only intent on ending the Ukraine crisis as soon as possible but more importantly maximizing the US' interests in the process.

To most people, the priority should be to end the Russia-Ukraine conflict first and then try to explore the opportunity to repair ties with Russia. But Trump seems to be ready to do the latter first.

So to what extent the peace process gathers momentum hinges on how well the interests of Washington and Moscow are served.

Responding to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's complaints that Kyiv was not invited to the talks, Trump said during a news conference at his Florida residence, "Well, you have been there for three years. You should have ended it three years ago", and "You should have never started it. You could have made a deal".

The talks in Saudi Arabia, which also excluded any other European representatives, are also further evidence that the transatlantic relationship is no longer sacrosanct. The new US leader obviously cares more about the European Union's trade surplus with the US than forming a united front against Russia.

If the EU chooses to obstinately stick to its animosity toward Russia then it will face economic bullying from the US at a time when it will have to pay more for its security.

The EU should reflect on its lack of strategic autonomy that has resulted in it having no say in the design of a new security architecture for Europe that is undoubtedly being hatched while it fusses and frets.