In their meetings at the White House on Monday, Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his European allies averted another diplomatic disaster after the fiasco of Donald Trump’s summit with Vladimir Putin in Alaska last week. In Anchorage, the US president rolled over and aligned himself with Russia’s stance on ending the war. Many in Europe feared Trump would railroad Zelenskyy into a bad deal or punish him for rejecting one. Some skilfully co-ordinated messaging and plenty of flattery by the European side helped to avoid what would have been a terrible outcome for Ukraine, European security and the survival of the west.
Confident, overly so, in his ability to bring Putin to a peace deal, Trump said he would arrange a meeting between the Russian and Ukrainian presidents. It is unclear when it will take place or even whether the Kremlin will agree. In Trump’s peacemaking show, optics matter more than substance. The vague prospect of another meeting is enough to keep it moving forward.
European leaders are pleased that Trump gave them a more sympathetic hearing than they were braced for, but they did not fully wind back the clock to before Alaska. Trump has sided with Moscow over the need for a comprehensive settlement rather than a ceasefire and has dropped any hint of sanctions.
He did say on Monday it was up to Ukraine to discuss issues about land. But he seems to think that Ukraine could end the war “immediately” if it gave up the rest of Donetsk and Luhansk, which would be politically and militarily suicidal for Zelenskyy.
The most promising development was Trump’s support for some kind of US contribution to security guarantees for Ukraine after previously skating over the issue. By all accounts, this was the main topic of Monday’s proceedings. The president gave the Europeans an opening.
However, there is confusion about what Trump has in mind. He said the US would be “involved” with “co-ordination” of European efforts and air support. He also talked about providing “Article 5-like” protection, a reference to Nato’s mutual defence clause. Steve Witkoff, his credulous envoy, even claimed Russia could accept such a guarantee, another supposed “concession” from Moscow.
But Nato’s Article 5 is imprecise, obliging each member only to “take such action as it deems necessary” to come to an ally’s aid. Nato’s strength lies in its centralised military command, defence plans and force commitments. Moscow might well agree to a version of Article 5. During talks with Ukraine in 2022, it was open to one, but with Russia taking part — and yielding a veto. Such an arrangement would be a sham guarantee.
The Ukrainians rightly demand robust and meaningful commitments from allies to come to its aid. In the absence of Nato membership, it would be better for the US to provide intelligence, reconnaissance and air support for a European mission. But that would require a willingness by all to fight back if attacked by Russia.
Senior officials on both sides of the Atlantic are beginning more detailed work on what guarantees might mean. Better late than never. Trump has a propensity to ignore the difficult details of any negotiation. He flip flops and then lands on the broad contours of a deal, with little regard to what it means in practice. It is bad enough in trade relations but worse in matters of war and peace.
To stand any chance of bringing peace to Ukraine, Trump has to grapple with the core contradiction: Ukraine will not agree to give up land under its control; Russia will reject any security guarantee that looks credible. It may be possible to chart a way through, but not without the US paying more attention to detail and applying more pressure on Moscow.