In all likelihood, the United States will withdraw from the war, which, in turn, will continue. It will be European countries, starting with the Franco-British-led coalition of volunteers, that will continue to support Kiev in its resistance against Russian occupation. And this support will increasingly be part of a broader effort in which the defense of Europe will increasingly fall into the hands of Europeans, without the Americans.
By Nathalie TOCCI
The meeting between the US, Europe and Ukraine was canceled at the last minute. Marco Rubio, Secretary of State, and Steve Witkoff, President Donald Trump’s special envoy, declined an invitation to the ministerial meeting in London just hours before it was to begin. The Trump administration’s step back comes after signals from Moscow about a possible openness to a (unseemly) proposal from Washington. The US plan for Ukraine would include both familiar elements – namely that Ukraine would not join NATO and that Russia would control the occupied territories of Ukraine – and unacceptable points, both in form and substance. In form, it would provide for recognition of the annexation of Crimea by Russia. Annexation of territories through the use of force is illegal. This applies to Ukraine, which would have to change its Constitution and give up part of its territory; a pledge that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has no right to make.
But this also applies to the rest of the international community. Just think of the Arab-Israeli conflict in which, after 58 years, no country recognizes the Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem and only the United States, precisely during the first Trump administration in 2019, recognized the Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights belonging to Syria, as well as Morocco’s sovereignty over Western Sahara as a “reward” for normalized relations with Israel.
So with the exception of the United States, it is difficult to imagine that any other country would be willing to recognize Russia’s annexation of Crimea. China probably wouldn’t do so, as despite its proximity to Moscow, it remains firmly anchored to the principle of territorial integrity. Let alone European countries (with the possible exception of Hungary). In essence, Washington’s plan says nothing concrete about security guarantees to prevent a ceasefire from actually paving the way for a resumption of war in the near future. It mentions a “strong security guarantee,” but specifies that it will be provided by European and other countries, without mentioning the United States.
Washington cannot help but know that the plan is doomed to fail. The real question is what its true purpose is. Trump must have realized that not only did the famous 48-hour peace not come in 48 days, but that it probably won’t come in 4 or 48 months.
Annoyed with Ukraine (as well as Gaza), the US president wants to look elsewhere, from the trade war with China to the negotiations with Iran. A few days earlier, Rubio had already announced that he would abandon the negotiations on Ukraine if a deal was not reached. Knowing that there would be no deal, it remained to determine who would be blamed. Without Trump’s “peace plan”, pointing the finger at Kiev would have required a great stretch of the imagination even for an administration shrouded in disinformation, incompetence and magical thinking. Up until that point, it was Moscow that, in both words and deeds, rejected the proposal for a comprehensive ceasefire that Kiev instead accepted. Especially after the Russian attack on civilians in Sumy on Palm Sunday, Washington’s anxiety, forced to grab at every branch calling the attack a “mistake”, had become apparent. What better way to get out of this than with a nice “peace plan” that is unacceptable to Kiev? So much so that US Vice President JD Vance, during a mission to India, made it clear that if the parties did not accept the US peace plan, Washington would withdraw.
Zelensky reiterated his willingness to proceed with a complete, immediate and unconditional ceasefire. He also ruled out, as was inevitable, formal recognition of the annexation of its territories.
Moscow, for its part, has neither accepted nor rejected Washington’s proposal, although it has said it would be willing to “settle” for the territories it occupies (thankfully, those it annexed without occupying at all). Enough to give the green light to Washington’s abandonment, which shifts the blame to Zelensky, as is evident from Trump’s post yesterday. The scenario has been set for what seemed to be the most realistic scenario in Ukraine since Trump’s victory in the race for the White House.
In all likelihood, the United States will withdraw from the war, which, in turn, will continue. It will be European countries, starting with the Franco-British-led coalition of volunteers, that will continue to support Kiev in its resistance against Russian occupation. And this support will increasingly be part of a broader effort, in which the defense of Europe will increasingly fall into the hands of Europeans, without Americans. Meanwhile, Trump’s America and Putin’s Russia, driven by an imperial and kleptocratic vision of international relations, will restore relations and resume doing business. After all, it is the idea of “peace” that unites them.
