I'm writing this as Ukrainian cities burn under Russian missiles whilst their president sits in Washington, desperately trying to avoid another public humiliation. The timing isn't coincidental—Putin's bombs are falling as Zelensky shakes hands with Trump, a brutal reminder of what "peace negotiations" actually mean when you're dealing with a war criminal .
As a European watching this unfold on our doorstep, I need to be honest about three uncomfortable truths that mainstream coverage won't acknowledge: First, Trump's Alaska summit with Putin wasn't diplomacy—it was a photo opportunity that legitimised aggression whilst calling it statesmanship. Second, the European leaders flanking Zelensky today aren't there as partners—they're there as bodyguards protecting him from another February-style ambush. Third, the "peace deal" being discussed isn't about ending the war—it's about rewarding Putin's territorial theft whilst pretending it's compromise.
Now, let me explain why these provocative statements, whilst attention-grabbing, reveal deeper truths about what's actually happening in Washington today.
The Theatre of Desperation
What struck me most about today's coverage was the careful choreography. Zelensky arrived wearing a black suit—a calculated departure from his usual military attire after Trump's previous complaints about his "costume" This wasn't vanity; it was survival politics. When you're fighting for your country's existence, even your wardrobe becomes a diplomatic weapon.
The presence of European leaders—Macron, Starmer, Merz, Meloni, Stubb, von der Leyen, and NATO's Rutte—tells a different story than the headlines suggest . They weren't there to rubber-stamp American decisions. They were there because they understand something Trump seems to miss: Ukraine's fate is Europe's fate.
Zelensky had been coached by European allies, particularly Britain's Starmer, on how to handle Trump—saying thank you for weapons and diplomacy, giving Trump a letter from his wife for Melania Trump, and wearing a suit jacket after being criticised for his typical war attire This level of micromanagement reveals just how precarious Ukraine's position has become.
The Impossible Mathematics of Peace
Trump's approach reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of what peace actually requires. His statement that Zelensky "can end the war with Russia almost immediately, if he wants to" sounds reasonable until you examine what that would actually mean.
The Ukrainian constitution explicitly prohibits territorial concessions . This isn't political posturing—it's legal reality. When Trump suggests Ukraine should "make a deal" because "Russia is a very big power, and they're not," he's essentially arguing that might makes right. That's not diplomacy; that's capitulation dressed up as pragmatism.
But here's what troubles me most: the human cost of this "realism." Whilst diplomats debate territorial swaps in Washington, Ukrainian cities were under attack. Putin's timing wasn't coincidental—it was a message. As one Kyiv resident told reporters, "We all want peace. But you can't accept peace at any cost. Ukraine must remain free" .
Anton, a Ukrainian veteran, captured the stakes perfectly: "My people will never accept, after three and a half years of deaths and destruction, giving territories to Russia" . His t-shirt read "Ukraine or Death"—a sentiment that captures the reality better than any diplomatic communiqué.
The Security Guarantee Mirage
Trump's promise of "Article 5-like protections" for Ukraine sounds impressive until you consider the source . This is the same president who's repeatedly questioned NATO's mutual defence commitments. The idea that he'd risk American lives to defend Ukraine when he won't guarantee protection for actual NATO allies is, frankly, absurd.
Steve Witkoff's claims about "robust security guarantees" and Putin's supposed concessions lack any verification from Moscow. In diplomacy, unconfirmed promises are worthless—especially when dealing with a leader who's violated every international agreement he's ever signed.
Russia's immediate rejection of "any scenarios" involving NATO troops in Ukraine demonstrates how hollow these guarantees actually are. Moscow understands what Washington apparently doesn't: security guarantees without credible enforcement mechanisms are just expensive paper.
What Fair Peace Actually Looks Like
A genuinely fair peace in Ukraine would require several non-negotiable elements. Ukraine's territorial integrity must be restored—not because it's politically convenient, but because rewarding aggression guarantees future wars. Russia must face consequences for war crimes—accountability isn't vengeance; it's justice. Security guarantees must be credible—paper promises won't deter future invasions.
The European leaders understand this. Their united presence in Washington wasn't about supporting Trump's peace process—it was about ensuring Ukraine isn't sacrificed for the illusion of quick resolution.
As Macron noted during the meetings, Europe needs representation in any trilateral talks because "when we speak about security guarantees, we speak about the whole security of the European continent" . This isn't European stubbornness—it's historical reality.
The Deeper Question
What's really at stake here isn't just Ukraine's future—it's whether international law means anything at all. If Putin can seize territory through violence and keep it through negotiation, what message does that send to every other potential aggressor?
The Ukrainian people seem to understand this better than their supposed allies. Despite three years of devastating war, polling shows most Ukrainians reject territorial concessions . They're not being stubborn—they're being realistic about what "peace" with Putin actually means.
As Olga Bondarchuk, a 70-year-old pollster in Kyiv, told reporters: "We are all tired of the war, all of us. But Zelensky has his hands tied: the constitution prevents him from ceding territories to Moscow. Don't the Americans understand this?"
Looking Forward
As I write this, the outcome of today's meetings remains uncertain. But one thing is clear: any peace that rewards aggression isn't peace—it's a temporary ceasefire that guarantees future conflict.
Trump's apparent openness to sending US troops to Ukraine might sound encouraging, but it raises more questions than it answers. If America won't defend NATO allies, why would it defend Ukraine? If security guarantees aren't credible, what's their actual value?
The question isn't whether Ukraine should compromise for peace. The question is whether the international community will stand by its principles when they're truly tested. Today's meetings will tell us whether we're witnessing the birth of a just peace or the death of international law.
Former British ambassador to Russia Sir Laurie Bristow put it bluntly: "There isn't going to be a peace deal with Mr Putin about Ukraine. That's not possible" . Any assurance Putin gives is "completely worthless," and the heart of any security arrangement must be about deterring Russia from attacking Ukraine again.
What do you think constitutes a fair resolution to this conflict? Can there be lasting peace without justice, or are we watching the slow-motion collapse of the international order we've built since 1945?
Post a Comment