Stop and reflect upon the geopolitical landscape between the Ukraine, United States and Russia. This is certainly complex and often tense.

It is influenced by various factors including military conflicts, diplomatic relations and international negotiations. Despite these criticisms, President Donald Trump has expressed confidence in his ability to broker a deal, suggesting that both he, and President Vladimir Putin, are eager to see an end to the conflict. However, the success of these negotiations remains uncertain, especially given the absence of Ukrainian participation and the complex geopolitical implications.

President Trump's recent initiatives to negotiate directly with Russian President Putin have introduced a significant shift in efforts to cease hostilities in Ukraine. High-level talks in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, led by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, have established a framework for ongoing negotiations.

Notably, these discussions have proceeded without Ukrainian representation, leading to concerns about the legitimacy and potential outcomes of any resulting agreements. German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock emphasised the principle that "there will be no decision made on Ukraine without Ukraine" highlighting the contentious nature of the current negotiation approach.

The situation continues to evolve, and the international community is closely monitoring the developments. In the background of such negotiations, President Trump has proposed that Ukraine provide the United States with $500bn worth of rare earth minerals as compensation for US military and economic aid during the ongoing conflict with Russia.

This proposal grants the US a 50% share of Ukraine's revenue from critical minerals, oil and gas, ports, and infrastructure. A draft contract, outlining the creation of a joint investment fund, has been presented to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. As can be expected, it is causing significant concern in Kyiv.

The arrangement demands a perpetual 50% share of Ukraine's economic activities, including revenues from mineral resources, oil and gas, ports and infrastructure. President Trump asserts that this is necessary to recoup the "hundreds of billions of dollars" the US has expended to defend Ukraine. The proposal also includes a lien on revenues from new licenses and a preferential right for purchasing exportable minerals. However, Ukrainian officials have expressed reservations, noting that the draft lacks security guarantees and could place a substantial financial burden on the country.

Critics argue that President Trump's strategy may lead to concessions favouring Russia, such as ruling out NATO membership for Ukraine and potentially accepting territorial losses for Ukraine. This approach has been described by some as "appeasement" with concerns that it could embolden Russian aggression and undermine European security.

Moving on, it is to our credit, that we hosted a successful OSCE meeting in Malta last year. Prima facie, this may indicate a willingness for international dialogue, but it does not guarantee that the two powers will agree to meet again.

Last December in Malta, more than 800 delegates from the 57 participating states of the OSCE, including foreign ministers, ambassadors, other diplomats, as well as international journalists, met for the ministerial council.

The OSCE, which includes 57 states, remains the most representative platform for discussing security in Europe. The Russian delegation to Malta was led by Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, while US Secretary of State Antony Blinken represented the United States. The latter sat at the same table with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andriy Sibiga. The chances this time, of a meeting between Trump and Putin in Malta would depend on several factors such as the overall state of relations, including sanctions, military posturing and diplomatic communications. All these would play a significant role.

Although the OSCE meeting in Malta may have established a precedent for dialogue, forecasting a specific US-Russia meeting on ending hostilities in Ukraine would depend on real-time analysis of the evolving political situation. Other neutral countries (such as Austria and Finland) can play several important roles in facilitating dialogue. Neutral countries (including Malta) can act as mediators to help bridge the gap between the US, Ukraine and Russia.

They can provide a neutral ground for discussions, helping to facilitate communication and negotiation. For example, Malta's hosting of the OSCE meeting demonstrates how this location can be chosen to promote dialogue. Malta has actively engaged in diplomatic efforts concerning the Russia-Ukraine conflict. During the last conference, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov delivered a speech critical of Western nations, while Maltese Foreign Minister and OSCE Chair Ian Borg urged Russia to withdraw from Ukraine and seek a peaceful resolution.

Additionally, in October 2023, Malta hosted a two-day meeting focused on Ukraine's peace plan, with representatives from over 65 countries in attendance. Notably, Russia was absent from this gathering. Despite Malta's proactive role in facilitating dialogue, the prospects of it hosting the signing of a future Ukraine-Russia truce remain uncertain. While Malta's neutral stance and commitment to peace make it a potential venue for future agreements, one cannot ignore the current geopolitical climate.

In times of heightened tensions or crises, third countries can help manage the situation by facilitating communication and reducing the risk of escalation.

This can involve backchannel communications or public statements that encourage restraint. It is worth remembering, how economic sanctions imposed on Russia by the United States, the EU, South Korea and the UK, have all had a notable impact on public opinion regarding Russia. For a start, as Putin rose to power and began consolidating authority, US-Russia relations soured. Events such as the Second Chechen War, the 2003 invasion of Iraq and growing authoritarianism in Russia led to increasing scepticism and concern among the free world. 

Next step saw an imposition of sanctions, particularly in response to actions such as the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and suspected interference in the 2016 US elections. These both contributed to a more negative view of Russia. For example, during the Trump administration (2016-2020), some Republicans expressed scepticism about the effectiveness of sanctions, while Democrats generally supported them.

This division can affect how different groups perceive the rationale and effectiveness of sanctions against Russia. As more sanctions have been introduced in response to ongoing conflicts, such as the war in Ukraine, public opinion has generally remained supportive of sanctions as a means of demonstrating solidarity with Ukraine and countering Russian aggression.

This has reinforced negative perceptions of Russia as a belligerent actor on the world stage, which has displaced millions of Ukraine families seeking shelter in neighbouring countries and left over 800,000 casualties in the Russian army. Peace is a precious and ephemeral gift to mankind, so let us pray talks will mellow adversaries in solving a bitter three-year-old bloody conflict in Ukraine. 

George M. Mangion is a senior partner at PKF Malta

gmm@pkfmalta.com