President Trump wrote on social media on Friday that Ukrainian leaders could “come back in peace” after a blushing Volodymyr Zelensky left the White House.
Peace is a powerful word, but to grasp its true meaning, one must look at the background it says. Mr. Pazelensky considered this the same day when Mr. Trump spoke about the importance of peace, and Russia launched more than 150 attack drones in Ukrainian cities. Mr. Trump stressed that he is making great strides towards peace with Russian President Vladimir Putin, but the latter will only increase his strike since the inauguration.
European leaders, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau were invited by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and pledged to support support for Ukraine and developed a plan to end a war that could win Trump support.
Europeans understand that, as the Trump administration does not seem to do, Ukraine wants a peace deal—it just doesn’t want to end up being destroyed by the peace clause. Mr. Putin’s obsession is Ukraine, undoubtedly Ukraine. It is neither NATO nor Ukrainian land. If Ukraine remains independent and armed at the end of the negotiations, Putin will not see it as an end. Today, he will settle down in a piece of Ukraine, but will be able to do his best tomorrow.
If it is about NATO, then Mr. Putin will not gently accept Sweden and Finland’s participation in 2023. Today, NATO’s border is closer to St. Petersburg than the Ukraine’s border, but Moscow.
So far, Russia has managed to take about 20% of its territory from Ukraine in this war. Mr. Putin cannot tolerate independent Ukraine because over the past 300 years, his predecessors have hardly been left. And if Ukraine is a democracy, the success of Western democracy, it would pose a direct threat to the Russian people’s acceptance of Putin’s dictatorial example.
Mr. Trump’s ceasefire in Ukraine was too important to his foreign policy to fail. He cannot fail to reach an agreement, and he certainly cannot allow Ukraine to become Afghanistan’s identity against Biden, a foreign policy failure that defines the rest of the presidency. Troubled by his ambitions, Trump is eager for quick success – so last week’s attack on Mr. Zelensky, his insistence on Ukraine, seemed to have hampered it. Mr. Putin understands this. He can therefore acknowledge the ceasefire to obtain the best interest provided by Mr. Trump, but he will not acknowledge the strategic goal of abandoning the destruction of Ukraine. There is no security guarantee, and the war will begin again at some point.
Friday’s events are a formalization of a new reality that has become increasingly obvious for weeks: America may still be seeking to lead the world, but it is a different world. And if Mr. Trump and Vice President JD Vance accuse Mr. Zelensky of a live stop in the Oval Office, it is the shock wave it emits throughout Europe. European leaders heard what Mr. Vance spoke in Munich in February and European leaders had mastered what they could not simply wait for what Mr. Trump did in his first term. Anyone who still doubts Friday’s performance will certainly convince.
Europe has taken important steps and promised to do more: summits, phone calls, decisions about a surge in defense spending and announcements to aid to Ukraine are now happening at a starting rate. Although these developments are gratifying, they failed to answer the most fundamental question about Ukraine and the rest of Europe: When? When will these ideas become implementation decisions?
Mr. Trump’s leverage on Ukraine is weapons and money, and both Ukraine needs to maintain its struggle for survival and economic stability. Europe could seize two actions from the president: providing alternative agreements on Ukraine’s minerals and seizing Russian frozen assets to fund the production and purchase of weapons, including from the United States (including the United States). The European Union, Britain and Norway cannot completely replace the United States as Ukraine supporters, but these pragmatic steps will immediately enhance Europe’s role and provide Ukraine with the required breathing space.
In 1918, Bolshevik Russia signed a treaty with Germany that recognized Ukraine’s independence, withdrew its troops and stopped propaganda on Ukrainian territory. Meanwhile, Kiev signed an agreement with Germany in exchange for large amounts of natural resources (mainly grains and meat) in exchange for German boots on the ground to protect its independence. Within a year, the transaction collapsed. Germany moved out, Russia’s Red Army moved in, and Ukrainian state no longer existed. Since then, it took Europe 104 years and the Russian invasion to finally realize that Ukraine belongs to Europe and put it into the EU process.
Moscow has never really changed, but Europe can still do it.
Dmytro Kuleba was Ukrainian Foreign Minister from 2020 to 2024. He is a senior fellow at the Harvard Belfer Center.
Times are committed to publishing Variety of letters To the editor. We want to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. These are some Tip. Here is our email: letters@nytimes.com.
Follow the New York Times’ opinion section Facebook,,,,, Instagram,,,,, Tiktok,,,,, Bruceky,,,,, WhatsApp and Thread.
