Just hours before yesterday’s high-stakes Washington summit on Ukraine, Russian missiles and drones slammed into Ukraine’s Kharkiv, Zaporizhzhia, and Sumy cities killing civilians, including children. As the smoke rose, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy arrived at the White House to meet with US President Donald Trump and key European leaders for what was billed as a pivotal moment for diplomacy.
But the attacks were no coincidence. They were Russian President Vladimir Putin’s opening argument being made with warheads instead of words. His message was clear: he sets the terms and expects Trump and the West to blink, just as it has before. A summit meant to project unity and resolve became a stark reminder that diplomacy divorced from consequences becomes an alibi for inaction.
Zelenskyy, unwavering as ever, called the strikes “demonstrative and cynical.” He’s right. These attacks were signals that Putin seeks to negotiate from a position of dominance, using terror as leverage while offering an illusion of peace.
The most revealing shift came from President Trump, who publicly reversed his previous insistence on a ceasefire before talks. “I don’t think you need a ceasefire,” he said, while suggesting that “territorial deals” might be on the table, even as he claimed Ukraine would receive “very good protection.”
This contradiction is more than diplomatic confusion. It sends a dangerous signal that the US may be willing to trade away Ukraine’s territory for peace. But Ukraine’s sovereignty is not a bargaining chip. Its Constitution prohibits surrendering land without a national referendum, and for good reason: rewarding aggression only ensures more of it.
Trump, while floating “territorial deals” for peace, also left open the possibility of US troops in Ukraine as part of future security arrangements and described European allies as the “first line of defense.” He even acknowledged speaking to Putin indirectly before meeting Zelenskyy, with the Russian leader “expecting my call” afterward.
The atmospherics may have been calmer this time, with even moments of levity in the Oval Office. But beneath the civility, the signals were deeply conflicting: Ukraine’s fate was being discussed with Putin already in the wings, and Europe cast as responsible for carrying the burden of defence.
European leaders showed up in Washington with a clear goal to shape the agenda. Their presence was a clear signal that Europe is not prepared to rubber-stamp a deal that rewards Putin. Many pushed for a trilateral summit that includes Russia, and for binding, enforceable guarantees of Ukraine’s future security.
Proposals for “NATO-style” guarantees for Ukraine remain on the table, but scepticism lingers. What exactly do they mean, and will they be sufficient to deter Russia from further aggression? An “agreement in principle” from Putin is meaningless without teeth in the form of enforcement, accountability, and readiness to respond. Europe must not simply echo Washington. It must assert its own red lines or risk becoming a passive stakeholder in its own future.
What is at stake is more than Ukraine. This summit revealed cracks in the transatlantic consensus and posed a deeper question: will the rules-based international order be reshaped by coercion, or reasserted with clarity and courage?
History teaches us that peace bought through appeasement is temporary. The 1938 Munich Agreement should serve as a warning, not a precedent. “Land for peace” doesn’t end wars—it invites the next one.
Zelenskyy is asking for nothing less than equal treatment under international law. And European unity, already battered by external threats and internal populism, cannot afford to equivocate on the principle of sovereignty.
Failing to defend Ukraine today means we can expect Russia to seek to further redraw the borders of Europe tomorrow—not with treaties, but with tanks.
Chris Kremidas-Courtney is a Senior Visiting Fellow at the European Policy Centre.
The support the European Policy Centre receives for its ongoing operations, or specifically for its publications, does not constitute an endorsement of their contents, which reflect the views of the authors only. Supporters and partners cannot be held responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.
