How the White House Policy Could Jeopardize Ukraine’s Sovereignty and U.S. Leadership in Europe

The White House has come to recognize the futility of its efforts to persuade Russia to sign a peace treaty with Ukraine and is now attempting to force Kyiv into negotiations with Moscow on terms that weaken Ukraine’s position—specifically, by curtailing military assistance (including air-defense munitions). This strategy, critics warn, is likely to result in a spike in civilian casualties and the degradation of Ukraine’s strategic infrastructure.

We are deeply concerned that under these conditions, the United States risks losing its leadership role in Europe—a role that, since the end of World War II, has been anchored by the promise of military deterrence against Russia (the Soviet Union) on the continent. U.S. negotiations with Russia are being conducted behind closed doors, preventing clear insights into the specific proposals from Washington that, according to the Administration, might compel Moscow to sign an agreement.

Meanwhile, Russian media outlets—at the level of rumor—are discussing a U.S. proposal to partition Europe into spheres of influence for the Kremlin. Although this information lacks independent confirmation and is disseminated through channels affiliated with Russian intelligence—which may hint at an information operation—we cannot categorically dismiss it, given the sensitivity of such a proposal for the Kremlin.

Since Trump’s inauguration, the White House has repeatedly proclaimed Russia’s readiness for a peace deal, yet the Kremlin has never officially affirmed this stance. Thus, it appears that only Donald Trump himself exhibited unwarranted optimism about ending the war. Moreover, both on the battlefield and in its propaganda, Russia continues to signal that it has not abandoned its plan to eliminate Ukraine as a sovereign state—a conclusion supported by Danish MP Anna Falkenberg and British MP Paul Coller. This reinforces our assessment that the breakdown of negotiations in the Oval Office with the Ukrainian President was a meticulously orchestrated maneuver by the White House Administration to salvage President Trump’s reputation amid Russia’s unwillingness to sign a peace agreement. (We published our analysis of the Kremlin’s reluctance to end the war on March 4.)

In effect, Russia is exploiting the situation to discredit the United States. The Kremlin has managed to fracture the coalition led by Washington, undermine NATO’s political leadership, and thereby weaken the alliance. A ceasefire, however, does not equate to true peace. Donald Trump’s proposals—entailing territorial concessions and rendering Ukraine neutral, reminiscent of the arrangement at the time of Crimea’s annexation in 2014—would merely replicate the case of the Korean Peninsula, where a truce, not a formal peace, has prevailed. The persistence of territorial claims over Ukraine’s right-bank territories along the Dnieper and even its capital suggests that a renewed Russian invasion is likely once lessons from 2022 have been incorporated and the combat effectiveness of Russian forces restored.