The White House played host on Monday to one of the most consequential, and contentious, summits of the war in Ukraine. Volodymyr Zelenskyy came to Washington seeking reassurance that U.S. backing hasn’t wavered. He didn’t come alone. As many as seven European leaders arrived with him in a striking show of unity, laced with a straightforward message: Ukraine cannot, and must not, be forced into a peace deal that surrenders its sovereignty.
Donald Trump appears to have had a different script. Fresh off his meeting with Vladimir Putin in Alaska, he once again suggested that Zelenskyy could “end the war almost immediately.” What he would not say out loud was how that would entail forgetting NATO, forgetting Crimea and accepting that parts of the Donbas will remain under Russian control. In other words, peace at the expense of sovereignty. For Moscow, that would be victory in all but name.
This was no small disagreement. It laid bare the deep divide between Washington and Europe over the path forward. European leaders closed ranks around Kyiv, warning that rewarding Russian aggression would only invite more of it. For them, a settlement that hands Putin territorial gains is, for the lack of a better word, an engraved invitation for future wars in Moldova, the Baltics, or elsewhere.
Zelenskyy, for his part, did not blink. He reminded Trump that Ukraine’s constitution bars the surrender of its land, and that hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians have died defending it. To give up territory now would mean betraying not only the fallen but the very idea of an independent Ukraine. His position may sound maximalist, but it reflects a simple truth; Russia started this war, and it cannot be allowed to redraw borders by force.
The uncomfortable reality is that Trump’s position reflects a U.S. foreign policy drift. American support for Ukraine is increasingly polarised and hostage to domestic politics. Europe, sensing that volatility, has begun to step up. From weapons shipments to financial assistance, the EU and NATO are laying the groundwork for a Europe that can carry Ukraine even if Washington falters.
The Washington summit was meant to close gaps. Instead, it spotlighted the fault lines. On one side is the temptation of a quick fix: freeze the conflict, hand Putin his spoils, and call it peace. On the other is the harder road of standing firm, funding Ukraine, and insisting that the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity remain non-negotiable.
The choice for the international community should be obvious. A peace imposed at Putin’s price isn’t peace at all. *