Kyiv Security Forum Analytics

Peace talks mediated by the US to end the war in Ukraine appear to have reached an impasse. This is now being discussed not only by journalists and experts, but also by European leaders, notably the President of Finland, Alexander Stubb.

The tendency of American negotiators to make progress by playing along with Moscow and putting pressure on Ukraine has become evident not only at the negotiating table. This stance, as presented by the American and Ukrainian leaders, has, in fact, already entered the public domain.

This has been facilitated by President Trump’s repeated statements that it is much easier to negotiate with Putin than with Ukraine, that he is ready for peace, and that the Ukrainian side must reach agreements with Moscow as soon as possible. Moreover, on Moscow’s terms.

To encourage Kyiv to surrender its interests, including security interests, Washington is linking the provision of security guarantees to Ukraine with the withdrawal of the Ukrainian Armed Forces from Donbas. And these are not rumours or unverified leaks. This was recently stated by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Signals regarding the Pentagon’s possible use of European funds and weapons intended for Ukraine under the PURL programme for US needs in the Middle East do little to foster trust in Washington.

Compounding all this is President Trump’s somewhat emotional reaction to Ukraine’s successful efforts to assist Middle Eastern states in repelling attacks by Iranian Shahed drones. This is prompted by criticism of the US head of state in the media, given that last year he missed an opportunity to prepare better for an operation in Iran when Kyiv offered its anti-drone capabilities, and Washington rejected them.

Signals from Europe that the war in Iran is ‘not our war’ are also introducing a certain nervousness into Trump’s position. In response, the American president points out that he could say the same about the war in Ukraine.

Russia’s military aid to Iran has not changed the White House’s position. Responding to journalists’ questions, President Trump and Defence Secretary Hexet sought to downplay the significance of Moscow’s transfer of intelligence and weapons, particularly drones, to Tehran. Nevertheless, all of this is being used to target American troops in the Middle East.

Following the latest round of talks between Ukraine and the US in Florida on 21–22 March, there has been renewed talk of a possible US withdrawal from the trilateral negotiations if Ukraine does not agree to a territorial compromise regarding Donbas. And Ukraine will not do so, a fact of which the American side has already been informed in detail on numerous occasions.

All this suggests that, unless the necessary adjustments are made to the format and substance of the peace talks, they may, whilst not officially terminated, effectively come to nothing in practice, focusing instead on technical and humanitarian issues. Today, against the backdrop of the war in Iran, this is not particularly important for Washington. However, with the US mid-term congressional elections approaching, the futility of Trump’s months-long peace efforts in Ukraine may take on greater significance.

The optimal way out of the situation would be to officially involve the Europeans in the trilateral talks, as partners of the US and Ukraine, with Brussels being given primary responsibility for this process. This could be justified by Washington’s preoccupation with the Middle East. For a certain period, the US role could be limited to supplying arms to Ukraine, in particular, using European funds. If President Trump were to firmly support this idea, it is unlikely that Moscow would be able to categorically reject it.