Sunday’s renewed diplomatic whirlwind began at a South Florida golf club. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, special envoy Steve Witkoff, and Jared Kushner, sat down with Ukraine’s national security chief, Rustem Umerov, for what both sides called “productive” talks. Four hours later: no breakthrough. Just vague assurances and promises to keep talking.
Yes, seemingly encouraging talk from Rubio for the cameras about safeguarding Ukraine’s sovereignty, security, and - a new buzz word - “prosperity,” but no mention even of territorial integrity.
By Monday, the focus had shifted to Paris. President Volodymyr Zelensky huddled with French President Emmanuel Macron, then EU officials and NATO’s secretary-general. Europe’s message was blunt: any peace deal needs real security guarantees, not the vague – and, in effect, elusive – American promises. Macron announced the “Coalition of the Willing” had finalized its own framework for post-war security.
Now, on Tuesday, Witkoff flies to Moscow carrying revised US proposals he’ll present to Russian President Vladimir Putin. EU foreign affairs chief Kaja Kallas called it a “pivotal week for diplomacy” – then added a warning: “It is clear that Russia does not want peace.”
She’s right.
Washington’s approach is running headlong into a problem it refuses to acknowledge that Putin isn’t interested in a real peace deal. He wants Ukraine’s surrender, dressed up in diplomatic language.
Witkoff has been shuttling between capitals with proposals that, fundamentally, willfully or not – misunderstand what’s happening. Washington is fixated on freezing the conflict along current lines – rewarding Russia’s invasion with territorial gains – while offering Kyiv vague promises about future security. This isn’t diplomacy. It’s wishful thinking dressed up as dealmaking.
The gap between what the US is proposing and what Europe and Ukraine are demanding couldn’t be wider. European leaders have developed frameworks that actually address core security questions: concrete pathways to NATO membership, robust guarantees backed by treaty obligations, mechanisms for Ukraine to rebuild.
These aren’t fantasies – they’re grounded in the reality that Kyiv needs ironclad assurances before accepting any territorial compromises.
What’s the US offering? At most, a demilitarized zone patrolled by European troops, a 20-year freeze on NATO membership, and, essentially, a gentleman’s agreement that Russia won’t attack again.
Putin must be laughing. He violated the Budapest Memorandum, ignored the Minsk accords, and has spent three years systematically destroying Ukrainian cities. Why believe he’d respect a deal that leaves Ukraine vulnerable?
Washington’s position rests on three flawed assumptions.
First: that Putin is a rational actor who can be satisfied with partial gains. Wrong. Every time the West has accommodated Russian concerns, he has pocketed the concessions and escalated. Georgia. Crimea. Full-scale invasion. The pattern couldn’t be clearer.
Second assumption: Europe will go along with whatever Washington decides. That ship sailed years ago. European leaders watched Trump’s first-term chaos over NATO and spent the years since building their own capabilities. The UK, France, Germany, Poland, Sweden, Finland, Italy, Spain, the Baltics, and others aren’t abandoning Ukraine to satisfy Trump’s desire for a quick win.
Third – and most dangerous – that Kyiv can be pressured into a bad deal by threatening to cut military aid. This fundamentally misreads Ukrainian politics. After almost four years years of brutal warfare and tens of thousands of dead, Ukrainians won’t accept a settlement that leaves them defenseless. Zelensky couldn’t sell such a deal even if he wanted to. Too many people have died for a pause that lets Russia re-arm and attack again.
In contrast, Europe’s proposals recognize these realities. They’re built on genuine security guarantees – not paper promises, but concrete commitments backed by military force and economic integration. immediate steps toward EU membership and security guarantees from multiple European powers, with specific commitments to intervene if Russia attacks again.
Most importantly, Europe doesn’t take NATO membership off the table. It recognizes that Ukraine’s long-term security requires integration into Western security architecture. This signals to Moscow that its veto over Ukrainian foreign policy is finished.
Putin’s response? Predictable. He wants Ukraine disarmed, neutral, permanently outside Western institutions. Territorial gains recognized as legitimate. Sanctions lifted. Russia welcomed back as if nothing happened. Victory at the negotiating table after failing on the battlefield.
The Kremlin’s position hasn’t budged despite mounting casualties and economic strain. Russian forces have suffered staggering losses – over 700,000 killed and wounded by some estimates. Yet Putin shows no sign of moderating his demands.
Why? He’s betting the West cracks first: war fatigue in Europe, political divisions in the US, Trump’s eagerness for any deal that can be sold as ending the war – he’s counting on all of it.
Washington seems determined to prove him right. Instead of coordinating with European allies and Ukraine to present a united front, US negotiators are freelancing with proposals that undercut the very countries that will live with the consequences. Instead of using American leverage to pressure Russia, they’re pressuring Ukraine.
This isn’t just bad strategy – it’s morally bankrupt. Ukraine didn’t start this war. It’s the victim of naked aggression, and it has fought with remarkable courage to defend its sovereignty. Pressuring Kyiv into a settlement that rewards Russian aggression is obscene.
Then there’s international law and the rules-based order that American presidents claimed to champion. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine violated the UN Charter, the Helsinki Final Act, and multiple international agreements. If Washington brokers a deal that legitimizes territorial conquest, what message does that send? China, among others, is watching to see whether the West will defend the principle that borders can’t be changed by force.
Yes, Europe needs to do more. But walking away now – after three years of support, after Ukraine has proven it can fight effectively – would be catastrophic.
What’s at stake?
If Russia wins – or extracts a settlement that leaves Ukraine vulnerable – NATO’s credibility shatters. Every country on Russia’s periphery concludes Western security guarantees are worthless. China is emboldened in Taiwan. Iran and North Korea learn that aggression pays if you outlast Western attention spans.
The alternative is clear: Ukraine emerges with sovereignty intact and genuine security guarantees. Invasion doesn’t pay. The rules-based order is reinforced. And the US achieves a strategic victory – degrading Russian military power – at a fraction of the cost of direct involvement.
The path forward isn’t complicated. Washington needs to align with European allies and Ukraine. That means supporting proposals with real security guarantees, pathways to NATO and EU membership, and mechanisms for reconstruction. It means maintaining pressure on Moscow until Putin recognizes he can’t win.
There’s room for compromise on specific territorial questions, on timelines for NATO accession, and on details of security arrangements. But one principle can’t be compromised: Ukraine must appear able to defend itself, assured it won’t face Russian aggression alone.
Trump’s current approach fails this test. Speed over substance. Appearance over reality. Ukraine treated as a problem to manage rather than a partner to support. And a fundamental misreading of Putin, who has repeatedly shown he respects only strength and exploits any weakness.
Will Washington – or rather, the Trump administration – figure this out before it’s too late? The early signs aren’t encouraging. Witkoff’s shuttle diplomacy looks designed to create the impression of progress rather than to deliver results.
There’s still time to change course. Washington could use its leverage to support the European-Ukrainian framework rather than undercut it. It could recognize that sustainable peace requires addressing Ukraine’s legitimate security needs, not just Putin’s territorial ambitions.
But that requires abandoning the fantasy of a quick deal. Ending this war in a way that serves American interests takes time, resources, and diplomatic skill – working with allies rather than around them, standing firm against Russia’s intransigence rather than caving to it.
A rushed settlement that leaves Ukraine vulnerable might generate positive headlines in the short term. but it would be a strategic disaster that haunts US foreign policy for decades. Putin is counting on Trump to choose the easy path. Europe and Ukraine are hoping he’ll choose the right one.
What legacy does Trump want in Ukraine? An administration that ended the war through sustainable peace? Or one that sold out an ally, rewarded aggression, and set the stage for future conflicts?
The choice should be obvious. But do Trump and his sycophants care? Hopefully, the majority of the American people do.
The views expressed in this opinion article are the author’s and not necessarily of Kyiv Post.