Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy secured firm diplomatic backing from European capitals and NATO-aligned partners ahead of a planned meeting this week between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin — a summit Kyiv fears could produce terms for ending the 3½-year war without Ukraine’s consent.
Trump announced on Friday that he will meet Putin on August 15 in Alaska. A White House official said Washington is open to Zelenskiy joining, but preparations are being made only for a bilateral U.S.–Russia meeting. The Kremlin last week ruled out a direct meeting between Putin and Zelenskiy, saying conditions for such an encounter were not in place.
Trump has suggested any deal might include “some swapping of territories to the betterment of both (sides),” raising alarm in Kyiv and among European partners that the U.S.–Russia talks could push a settlement that rewards Russian gains. Zelenskiy rejected any arrangement made without Ukraine as “stillborn” and unworkable.
European leaders from Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Finland, together with the European Commission, issued a joint warning that any diplomatic solution must defend Ukraine’s and Europe’s security interests and must include Ukraine itself. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas urged that “any deal between the U.S. and Russia must have Ukraine and the EU included, for it is a matter of Ukraine’s and the whole of Europe’s security.” EU foreign ministers were scheduled to meet to consider next steps.
Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, speaking to ABC News, said the Alaska summit should test whether Putin is serious about ending the war and stressed that Ukraine must decide its own future as a sovereign nation. Rutte added that while a deal could not include legal recognition of Russia’s control over Ukrainian territory, it might—practically—amount to de facto arrangements, drawing a parallel to how Western powers treated Baltic states’ control after World War Two (recognizing de facto control but not legal annexation).
Russia currently occupies nearly a fifth of Ukraine’s territory. European officials said they had presented a counter-proposal to Washington’s approach; details were not disclosed. Moscow’s political figures responded angrily. Former president Dmitry Medvedev mocked Europe’s moves on social media, and the Russian Foreign Ministry’s spokeswoman issued vitriolic statements characterizing EU–Ukraine ties. Pro-Kremlin commentators warned that a direct Trump–Putin deal could leave Europe and Kyiv facing a fait accompli.
Additional context and analysis
– Why Kyiv and Europe insist on Ukrainian inclusion and a ceasefire first: negotiating territorial changes while active hostilities continue risks coerced concessions. A ceasefire reduces direct battlefield pressure, improves verifiability of any swaps or exchanges, and strengthens the credibility of security guarantees.
– De facto vs legal recognition: Western powers could accept a practical reality on the ground without legally recognizing territorial annexation. That approach, however, carries political and moral costs and could be temporary only if enforceable security measures are lacking.
– Practical obstacles: durable ceasefires, enforceable security guarantees, verification mechanisms and domestic political acceptance in Kyiv, Moscow and Western capitals will be hard to secure. Any proposal that requires Ukraine to cede land would likely face deep domestic resistance and legal challenges.
Summary (key points)
– Trump will meet Putin on Aug. 15 in Alaska; the White House is open to Zelenskiy attending but is preparing a bilateral meeting.
– Putin has refused a meeting with Zelenskiy; Trump floated territory swaps as part of a deal, provoking Ukrainian and European concern.
– European leaders insist any settlement must protect Europe’s and Ukraine’s security and must include Ukraine in decisions about its future.
– Europe presented a counter-proposal; Russia dismissed European efforts and responded with hostile rhetoric.
– Russia occupies nearly one-fifth of Ukraine’s territory; questions remain about the enforceability and legitimacy of any U.S.–Russia agreement reached without Kyiv’s full participation.
Hopeful angle
High-level engagement — including transatlantic consultations and a visible European counter-proposal — shows major actors are not leaving terms to a bilateral U.S.–Russia arrangement alone. Multilateral involvement increases the odds that any eventual settlement would include safeguards, verification and Ukrainian consent, which are essential for a lasting peace.
Suggested additions for publication
– A short timeline of recent diplomatic steps (dates of Chevening/other meetings, the Alaska summit announcement) to help readers track developments.
– An explainer on what “security guarantees” could look like in practice (peacekeeping forces, international monitoring missions, binding treaties).
– Reactions from Ukrainian political parties, parliament and civil society to show domestic perspectives inside Ukraine.
– A simple map showing areas under Russian control and frontline lines to illustrate stakes for readers.
Logical note
Any treaty or agreement that permanently alters borders without Ukraine’s clear, voluntary consent and credible, enforceable guarantees risks being illegitimate and unstable. The insistence by Kyiv and its European partners on Ukrainian participation and on measures to prevent coercion reflects both legal principles and practical concerns about enforcement and long-term stability.
Leave a comment