WASHINGTON DC/OP-ED: The White House summit, which brought together President Donald Trump with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and numerous European leaders, revealed that the United States must end its distant support of Kyiv to achieve sustainable peace. The European leaders’ attendance in Washington emphasised the immediate need to stop fighting while also revealing deep disagreements about how to accomplish this goal. The United States must demonstrate to all parties that its mediation efforts stem from a genuine desire to achieve a fair, enforceable settlement instead of pursuing personal gains for its mediation to succeed. The large amount of U.S. military and financial support for Ukraine creates difficulties in understanding the extent of American involvement.
The process of perception stands as a basic component which drives diplomatic operations. The Russian government maintains its opposition to all American proposals because the United States has invested heavily in Ukraine’s military defence through both financial and military means. The strategic and moral justification for this support creates an inferential dilemma because Washington’s perceived bias as a supporter instead of a mediator will cause any proposed settlement to be viewed as a victory for one side over the other rather than as a compromise. The situation is made worse by domestic political dynamics in the United States. Bipartisan support for aid to Kyiv has diminished in recent months, increasing pressure on U.S. policymakers to achieve rapid results and tempting negotiators to sacrifice long-term stability for expediency. The risk is evident: Haste could result in a deal that coerces Ukraine into concessions, thereby undermining the broader international order.
The nature of the conflict makes bargaining more complex. The situation goes beyond typical border disputes because it involves questions about state sovereignty and national identity and the fundamental principles of post-Cold War security architecture. Ukraine’s core demands—restoration of territorial integrity and the sovereign right to determine its security arrangements, including potential NATO membership—conflict with Russian demands for limitations on Ukraine’s Western ties and, in some instances, recognition of territorial changes. Any agreement that treats territory as a negotiable commodity without addressing deeper legal and psychological issues will be inherently fragile. A sustainable peace needs solutions which address both physical conflict elements and constitutional conflict elements.
The European delegation at the White House emphasised this point: a ceasefire, meaningful verification, and security guarantees are essential prerequisites for credible negotiations. European leaders thought that a basic “peace-deal first” strategy, which focused on getting a public agreement before stopping fighting and creating security measures, would probably fail when Russia resumed its aggressive actions. Their position demonstrates both strategic interests and an understanding that European security depends on the outcome of Ukraine’s situation.
The United States needs to establish trust with Moscow and Kyiv and European allies to achieve its goal of becoming an honest broker. This requires three concrete policy actions. Washington needs to keep all its goals and boundaries open to public view. A mediator who negotiates in secrecy or appears to pre-arrange outcomes with one side will lose credibility. The U.S. needs to create a multilateral negotiation framework which includes European and NATO members and impartial third parties for both negotiation and verification activities. A durable agreement requires a credible verification regime, which includes international observers and a withdrawal timetable and arms control measures, and enduring security arrangements. Third, the sequence of negotiations is critical: a ceasefire and verifiable de-escalation must precede discussions on contested territories, and security guarantees for Ukraine must be specified and funded before any territorial concessions are considered.
The question of who provides guarantees, and how, presents particular challenges. European leaders have advocated for NATO-like security assurances, yet these raise complex political and legal issues. The process of NATO membership requires time, and a customised security framework for Ukraine demands creative solutions, including a coalition of willing nations and extended defence agreements and a new multinational peacekeeping force with strong engagement procedures. The security arrangement needs to establish enforceable penalties for violations because promises without enforcement will not meet the requirements of Kyiv or its European partners.
All participants need to maintain humility throughout the entire process of effective mediation. The United States must recognise that it cannot—and should not—impose a unilateral solution. Washington should lead the process by organising discussions through stakeholder meetings and technical working groups for ceasefire verification and displacement, reconstruction, and multiple meetings to reduce differences. The process needs to be clear enough to gain international support but should have enough structure to let negotiators make deals without media attention. Above all, the U.S. must resist the impulse to prioritise speed over substance. Quick fixes that overlook the root causes of conflict will only postpone future crises.
The last requirement for diplomatic work requires diplomats to stay morally clear in their actions. A lasting peace cannot reward aggression; it must reaffirm the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity while acknowledging the difficult compromises necessary to halt the violence. The maintenance of equilibrium between principle and pragmatism and deterrence and diplomacy requires careful handling. The U.S. can establish a lasting settlement through its political leadership of a multilateral process that is both transparent and enforceable. The absence of defined boundaries between the parties will produce an agreement that halts combat but generates fresh problems, which will trigger additional violence.
In conclusion, the path ahead will be fraught with challenges. The Washington meeting demonstrated both the positive aspects and negative consequences of American leadership because it allowed diplomatic efforts to resume for international resource and political backing, yet it also presented the risk of poor mediation that could make existing unfairness worse. European leaders view the upcoming trilateral dialogue between President Trump and President Zelenskyy, and Putin with both optimism and wariness because they understand the great importance of the situation. Their goals for the dialogue stem from their wish to establish a lasting peace that protects all of Africa instead of focusing only on Ukraine. The United States needs to take deliberate action to become a global broker by establishing trust through transparent practices, while keeping negotiations within a multilateral framework, and by sequencing de-escalation before status discussions and by making sure security guarantees are both genuine and enforceable. Diplomacy can provide Ukraine and Europe with a lasting peace only after this point.
(The opinions expressed in this article are the authors, Europeantimes.org bears no responsibility for the same)
Views: 81
Simon Hutagalung
Simon Hutagalung is a retired Indonesian Foreign Ministry diplomat and received his Master’s degree in Political Science and Comparative Politics from the City University of New York. He writes opinion pieces for Europeantimes and all opinions expressed in his article are his own.
