This week, two urgent summits were held in Europe, and concerning statements were made by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, highlighting the fears in capitals from Kyiv to London.
In particular, there is growing concern that Washington and Moscow may attempt to reach an agreement on Ukraine’s future without Kyiv and its European allies.
American officials have denied any intention to exclude anyone from the process. However, the suggestion by the U.S. that Europe might not be at the negotiating table has sparked widespread alarm, and the positive atmosphere following the U.S.-Russia meeting in Riyadh on February 18 has also caused much concern.
At this stage, there are two key questions: Can Washington and Moscow agree on an acceptable deal for both sides to end the war in Ukraine, and if they reach such an agreement, what would anyone be able to do about it?
The White House is clear that it seeks peace. It is unclear if Moscow desires the same. Trump’s special envoy for Ukraine and Russia, Mark Kellogg, traveled to Kyiv on February 19, just hours after Russian airstrikes hit Ukraine overnight, leaving nearly 250,000 people without power in the port city of Odesa, where temperatures were below zero.
In Moscow, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told the State Duma that “the crisis should not be resolved with a ceasefire.”
If the Kremlin is willing to negotiate, it appears ready to impose significant conditions. The most troubling scenario for Ukraine and its European allies is that Washington could agree to such terms.
U.S. officials have stated that both sides in the conflict will need to make concessions, but have not provided details on what concessions might be offered to Russia.
Asked about this matter on February 15, during the Munich Security Conference, Kellogg said, “There will be territorial concessions” and “there might also be a renunciation of the use of force.”
Skeptics have warned that the United States is offering too much, too quickly, in search of a swift and easy diplomatic victory. But if there is an agreement that Ukraine and Europe do not accept, what will happen next?
There have been a series of powerful statements.
Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andriy Sybiha was asked in Munich how Kyiv should respond to the “rejection” of a bad deal. “We know how to resist. We have proven this on the battlefield,” he said.
However, without continued U.S. support, Ukraine’s resistance would be difficult. So far, Europe has provided more assistance to Kyiv than the U.S., according to data published by the Kiel Institute for the World Economy. This includes military, financial, and humanitarian aid.
But Washington is the largest provider of military support, highlighting the challenges Ukraine would face without American backing. To cover this gap, Europe would need to almost double its total support for Kyiv.
European leaders have consistently reiterated their stance to provide aid to Ukraine “for as long as necessary.” However, this does not address whether they would massively increase this aid to fill the gap.
Even discussions about a potential European peacekeeping force that would be deployed in Ukraine after a possible ceasefire or peace agreement have been conditioned on the involvement and support of the U.S.
Given fiscal constraints and political divisions, it remains unclear whether Europe will increase its support. So far, at every step, Europe has needed America to hold its hand.
