Subscribe
After more than three and a half years of war, the word “peace” has once again crept into diplomatic corridors. In Washington, President Donald Trump hosted Volodymyr Zelensky alongside European leaders; Vice President J.D. Vance spoke of “significant concessions” from Russia. Too little for a breakthrough, but enough to stir new hopes.
And yet, behind the smiles and conciliatory communiqués, the reality is harsh: Moscow demands recognition of its annexations and Ukraine’s neutrality, while Kyiv insists on a return to the 1991 borders. Western diplomacy, though active, struggles to craft a credible plan that could stop the war without legitimizing the aggressor.
Moscow Refuses Compromise—and Questions Zelensky’s Legitimacy
In a recent interview with NBC’s Meet the Press, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov called Volodymyr Zelensky “illegitimate,” declaring that he therefore cannot sign a peace agreement. Without a shared presidential mandate, Lavrov argued, any face-to-face between Putin and Zelensky would be premature. At the same time, he repeated Moscow’s demands: Ukraine must renounce NATO membership, recognize Crimea as Russian, and grant official status to the Russian language and institutions in parts of Ukraine.
Ukraine’s Deputy Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha dismissed the remarks as “absurd.” “There is nothing more ridiculous than receiving a lecture on legitimacy from those who have clung to power for 21 years under a leader who has ruled for 25,” he said. The exchange underscored just how deep the political fracture remains.
Kyiv Holds Firm: Integrity, Justice, Binding Guarantees
On the other side, Ukraine has not budged. For Zelensky, peace is only possible with the full restoration of sovereignty within the borders recognized in 1991—including Crimea.
Kyiv’s “Peace Formula,” presented at the United Nations, sets out ten points: total withdrawal of Russian troops, return of prisoners and deported children, accountability for war crimes, nuclear safety, and binding collective security guarantees.
“Without full sovereignty, there can be no peace,” Zelensky insists. His stance is backed by public opinion: surveys show around 80 percent of Ukrainians reject any compromise on territory.
At the heart of Kyiv’s demands are guarantees. Since NATO membership remains out of reach for now, Ukraine is calling for enforceable commitments: air defense systems, steady ammunition supplies, joint weapons production, and training. In other words, a NATO-style umbrella without formal membership, but with real obligations for Western partners.
Europe’s Response: Money, Deterrence, and Missions
The European Union has assumed a triple role.
1. Financing. Through the “Ukraine Facility,” Brussels has pledged €50 billion between 2024 and 2027 to stabilize the economy and begin reconstruction. These funds are supplemented by revenues from frozen Russian assets and military support from the European Peace Facility.
2. Security guarantees. Following the G7 in Vilnius, several EU members signed bilateral agreements with Kyiv, covering air defense, munitions, training, and joint production. The goal is to ensure Ukraine will not stand alone, even outside NATO.
3. Monitoring missions. Brussels is weighing the idea of a European coalition capable of supervising a ceasefire if one emerges. Such a mission would not involve combat, but would monitor humanitarian corridors and demarcation lines. For it to succeed, however, it would need U.S. backing—especially in intelligence and air cover.
As one EU official put it: “The Ukrainian army must remain strong, because only from strength can credible peace be born.”
The Map of Occupation: Russia Holds 19–20% of Ukraine
The geography of the war frames every negotiation. Today, Moscow controls about 114,500 square kilometers, or 19–20 percent of Ukraine’s territory.
- Crimea, annexed in 2014, remains fully under Russian control.
- Luhansk, almost entirely occupied (98%).
- Donetsk, where Russia holds vast areas including Mariupol, while Sloviansk and Kramatorsk remain under Ukrainian control.
- Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, roughly 74 percent combined in Russian hands, though Kyiv still controls the regional capitals of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson cities.
These regions are not just pieces of land: they represent industrial centers, fertile farmland, and vital infrastructure. For Ukraine, losing them would cripple the economy; for Russia, holding them proves the war has yielded tangible results.
Washington: Indispensable, Yet Ambivalent
The United States remains the only player capable of turning drafts into reality.
Vice President Vance has stated that Moscow showed “significant concessions,” signaling openness to recognizing Ukraine’s government and guaranteeing its security without installing a puppet regime. Trump, meanwhile, has warned he will tighten sanctions if diplomacy falters.
The American line is clear: no U.S. boots on the ground, but willingness to provide logistical support, intelligence, and potentially air cover for a European mission. Economically, Washington holds the sanctions card: easing them will only be possible under strict verification of Russian compliance. Yet U.S. domestic politics complicate the picture. With Congress divided and elections looming, Washington is pressing Europe to assume more of the financial and military burden.
War on the Ground: Ukraine Strikes Deep Into Russia
Diplomatic maneuvering continues against a backdrop of escalating military strikes. On the night of August 24, Ukrainian forces launched coordinated drone attacks on critical Russian infrastructure, hitting the Ust-Luga port terminal and an oil refinery in Astrakhan. Fires and production disruptions followed, impacting energy markets: Brent crude rose to $67.76 per barrel, WTI to $63.73.
That same night, Russia accused Ukraine of a mass drone attack on the Kursk nuclear power plant. One auxiliary transformer was hit, cutting output at a reactor by 50 percent. The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed no radiation risk but warned the situation was “serious.”
These strikes, aimed not only at degrading Russia’s war machine but also at undermining its economy, carry symbolic weight. By hitting energy hubs that fund the Kremlin’s war chest, Ukraine signals it can project power deep inside Russian territory. This adds pressure on Moscow at the negotiating table while reminding Western partners that Kyiv is neither passive nor dependent, but actively shaping the battlefield.
Meanwhile, in a rare gesture amid the bloodshed, Moscow and Kyiv exchanged 146 prisoners each. A symbolic act of humanity, but also a reminder that the war is fought on two levels: through weapons, and through diplomacy.
Why Peace Remains So Elusive
At the core of the stalemate is territory. Accepting a deal that freezes the war along current lines would mean legitimizing Russia’s occupation—something Kyiv and its allies see as unacceptable. For Ukraine, it would be a disguised surrender. For the West, it would reward aggression and undermine international law.
Analysts warn that without strong verification and enforcement, any deal risks collapsing into a fragile ceasefire. Putin, with his strategy of pressure and ambiguity, appears to be betting on Western fatigue and disunity to tilt the talks in Moscow’s favor.
Beyond Ukraine: The Stakes for the World
This negotiation is not only about Ukraine. It is about the future of the international order. If a major power can redraw borders by force, no country can feel secure.
That is why leaders like Italy’s Giorgia Meloni emphasize Western unity. “Only the unity of the West can guarantee peace and justice,” she said. It is a conservative principle: peace is not granted through concessions, but built through deterrence and solidarity.
For Europe, the outcome is existential. Either the EU demonstrates that its billions of euros and political resolve can anchor security, or it risks being sidelined in its own neighborhood. The choices made now will determine whether Europe becomes a guarantor of order—or a mere bystander to decisions made in Washington and Moscow.
Looking Ahead: Fragile, Uncertain, Yet Possible
The months ahead will be crucial. European capitals must formalize their security commitments. Washington may attempt to arrange a direct Putin–Zelensky meeting with American mediation. On the battlefield, neither side looks capable of a decisive breakthrough, making the war both urgent to resolve and difficult to end.
If a pathway to peace exists, it will require balancing sovereignty, security, and justice. It is a narrow path, but not yet closed. The fate of Ukraine—and with it, Europe’s future security—hangs in the balance.