Europeans to back Zelensky-Trump meeting in Washington
rte.ie -- Sunday, August 17, 2025, 7:53:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: U.S.–Russia Relations, Foreign Policy & International Relations, U.S.–NATO Relations
European leaders will join the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to meet Donald Trump in Washington later today, they said, seeking to shore up Mr Zelensky's position as the US president presses Ukraine to accept a quick peace deal to end Europe's deadliest war in 80 years.
Mr Trump is leaning on Mr Zelensky to strike an agreement after he met Kremlin chief Vladimir Putin in Alaska and emerged more aligned with Russia on seeking a peace deal instead of a ceasefire first.
"If peace is not going to be possible here and this is just going to continue on as a war, people will continue to die by the thousands ... we may unfortunately wind up there, but we don't want to wind up there," Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in an interview with CBS' "Face the Nation."
Mr Trump promised "BIG PROGRESS ON RUSSIA" in a social media post without specifying what this might be.
Mikhail Ulyanov, Russia's envoy to international organisations in Vienna, said Russia agreed that any peace agreement on Ukraine must provide security guarantees to Kyiv.
"Many leaders of #EU states emphasise that a future peace agreement should provide reliable security assurances or guarantees for Ukraine," Mr Ulyanov said on social media platform X.
"Russia agrees with that. But it has equal right to expect that Moscow will also get efficient security guarantees."
Top Trump officials hinted that the fate of Ukraine's eastern Donbas region - which is already mostly under Russian control - was on the line, while some sort of defensive pact was also on the table.
"We were able to win the following concession, that the United States could offer Article 5-like protection," Mr Trump envoy Steve Witkoff told CNN's "State of the Union", suggesting this would be in lieu of Ukraine seeking NATO membership.
Mr Witkoff said it was "the first time we had ever heard the Russians agree to that."
Article 5 of NATO's founding treaty enshrines the principle of collective defence, in which an attack on any member is considered an attack on all.
That pledge may not be enough to sway Ukraine to sign over Donbas.
Ukraine's borders were already meant to be guaranteed when Ukraine surrendered a nuclear arsenal in 1994, which proved to be little deterrent when Russia absorbed Crimea in 2014 and launched its full-scale invasion in 2022.
The war has killed or wounded more than one million people.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron, and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer hosted a meeting of allies yesterday to bolster Mr Zelensky's hand, hoping in particular to lock down robust security guarantees for Ukraine that would include a US role.
The Europeans are eager to help Mr Zelensky avoid a repeat of his last Oval Office meeting in February when Mr Trump and Vice President JD Vance gave the Ukrainian leader a public dressing-down, accusing him of being ungrateful and disrespectful.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen will also travel to Washington, as will Finnish President Alexander Stubb, who has played rounds of golf with Mr Trump this year, and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, an admirer of many of Mr Trump policies.
European show of solidarity
European leaders at the meeting projected unity, welcoming US talk of a security guarantee but stressing no discussions over territory could take place without Ukrainian involvement and clear arrangements to safeguard the rest of Ukraine's land.
Some called for an immediate ceasefire, which Mr Trump originally said he was trying to secure during his summit with Mr Putin.
Mr Trump later changed course and agreed with the Russians that peace negotiations could come without a ceasefire, an idea dismissed by some of Ukraine's European allies.
"You cannot negotiate peace under falling bombs," Poland's foreign ministry said in a statement.
A joint communique released by Britain, France and Germany after the meeting said their leaders were ready "to deploy a reassurance force once hostilities have ceased, and to help secure Ukraine's skies and seas and regenerate Ukraine's armed forces."
Some European countries, led by Britain and France, have been working since last year on such a plan, but others in the region remain reluctant to become involved militarily.
Mr Zelensky said on X there had been "clear support for Ukraine's independence and sovereignty" at the meeting."Everyone agrees that borders must not be changed by force."
He said any prospective security guarantees "must really be very practical, delivering protection on land, in the air, and at sea, and must be developed with Europe's participation."
Mr Rubio said both Russia and Ukraine would need to make concessions to reach a peace deal and security guarantees for Ukraine would be discussed. He also said there must be additional consequences for Russia if no deal was reached.
"I'm not saying we're on the verge of a peace deal, but I am saying that we saw enough movement to justify a follow-up meeting with Mr Zelensky and the Europeans, enough movement for us to dedicate even more time to this," Mr Rubio told broadcaster CBS.
Mr Putin briefed his close ally, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, about the Alaska talks, and also spoke with Kazakhstan's president, Kassym-Jomart Tokayev.
Mr Trump said Ukraine should make a deal to end the war because "Russia is a very big power, and they're not."
After the Alaska summit, Mr Trump phoned the Ukrainian leader and told him the Kremlin chief had offered to freeze most front lines if Ukraine ceded all of Donetsk, a source familiar with the matter said. Mr Zelensky rejected the demand.
Sign Our PetitionThe recent meeting between European leaders and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, alongside former President Donald Trump, raises significant questions regarding the nature of international diplomacy and the future of Ukraine amidst ongoing conflict with Russia. As Europe seeks to shore up support for Zelensky, it is crucial to consider the historical context of Ukraine's geopolitical situation and the implications of a potential peace deal. This moment reflects not just a strategic maneuver in a complex war, but also highlights the broader social struggles for sovereignty, self-determination, and security that Ukraine has faced over the decades.
Historically, Ukraine has been caught in a tug-of-war between East and West, particularly between Russia and European/NATO interests. The 1994 Budapest Memorandum, in which Ukraine relinquished its nuclear arsenal in exchange for security assurances, has proven to be a glaring example of how international commitments can falter. The annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014 and the ongoing hostilities in the Donbas region serve as painful reminders of the inadequacy of these promises. This legacy of broken assurances underscores the urgency of ensuring that any discussions of peace do not come at the cost of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. The notion that a peace deal might prioritize expediency over a genuine cessation of hostilities is a troubling prospect that echoes historical precedents where the desires of powerful nations overshadowed the voices and rights of smaller states.
The rhetoric surrounding the potential peace deal—especially Trump's framing of "BIG PROGRESS ON RUSSIA"—poses a risk of diminishing Ukraine’s agency in negotiations. Trump's past interactions with Zelensky, particularly the infamous phone call leading to his impeachment, exemplify a transactional view of international relations that often sidelines the needs of those directly affected by conflict. The proposal of providing "Article 5-like protection" in lieu of NATO membership raises further concerns. While such assurances might seem appealing on the surface, they do not guarantee the comprehensive security that NATO membership would entail. This raises fundamental questions about the sincerity of commitments made by the U.S. and its allies, given the historical precedents of international guarantees failing to protect nations in times of crisis.
Furthermore, the social ramifications of this conflict cannot be overlooked. The war in Ukraine has resulted in over a million casualties, with many lives irrevocably altered. The ongoing violence has not only displaced millions but has also led to profound social upheaval within Ukrainian society. A hasty peace deal that does not adequately address the needs of the Ukrainian people—both those currently in conflict zones and those who have fled—would be an affront to the sacrifices endured. In many ways, this moment serves as a litmus test for international solidarity and the responsibility of global leaders to prioritize human rights and dignity over mere political expediency.
In conclusion, the convergence of European leaders with Trump and Zelensky in Washington today is not merely a diplomatic formality; it is a critical juncture in the ongoing struggle for Ukrainian sovereignty and security. As discussions of peace unfold, it is imperative for advocates of justice and human rights to call attention to the historical failures of international guarantees, the importance of Ukrainian agency in negotiations, and the necessity of prioritizing the wellbeing of the population over geopolitical convenience. The fate of Ukraine is not merely a matter of political strategy; it is about supporting a nation’s right to self-determination amidst the complexities of global power dynamics. As this situation evolves, it remains essential for the international community to listen to and amplify the voices of those most affected by the war, ensuring that any resolution is just, equitable, and respectful of Ukraine's sovereignty.
The recent news regarding the upcoming meeting between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and former U.S. President Donald Trump in Washington has stirred significant discourse around the geopolitical dynamics of the Ukraine conflict. Central to this discussion is the question of how the West, particularly the United States, navigates its relationship with both Ukraine and Russia, especially as we witness a pivot that suggests a desire for rapid peace negotiations rather than a sustained commitment to Ukraine's sovereignty. This situation is both precarious and historically significant, as it reflects broader trends in international diplomacy that have developed over decades.
Historically, Ukraine's position as a former Soviet state has placed it at the crossroads of Eastern and Western influences. The 1994 Budapest Memorandum, where Ukraine surrendered its nuclear arsenal in exchange for security assurances from the U.S., U.K., and Russia, is now seen through a lens of betrayal and diminished trust, particularly after Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the ongoing conflict that has led to the loss of over a million lives. The current administration's push for a peace deal, potentially sacrificing Ukrainian territory in favor of expedience, raises ethical questions about the long-term implications of such decisions. It is crucial to recognize that a quick peace deal, as advocated by Trump and some of his officials, could very well undermine Ukraine's sovereignty and future security.
In light of these developments, there are several actionable steps that Americans can take to advocate for a more principled approach to Ukraine's defense. First, it is essential to encourage a robust dialogue focused on the necessity of security guarantees for Ukraine that are not contingent upon territorial concessions. Advocating for the United States to reaffirm its commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty—beyond mere rhetoric—could help solidify international alliances and demonstrate a collective resolve against authoritarian aggression. Writing to representatives, attending town hall meetings, or engaging in community discussions about the importance of supporting Ukraine are all vital avenues through which citizens can express their concerns and priorities.
Furthermore, grassroots mobilization and education on the history of the conflict can empower more citizens to engage with this issue critically. Understanding the historical context and the stakes involved can lead to more informed discussions that challenge the oversimplified narratives often put forth by those in favor of appeasement. Initiatives such as organizing informational workshops, webinars, and public forums can be instrumental in disseminating knowledge and fostering greater public engagement on foreign policy matters. In addition, collaborating with organizations dedicated to international human rights and sovereignty can amplify voices advocating for Ukraine's territorial integrity.
Additionally, it is imperative to scrutinize Trump's historical approach to foreign policy, particularly in relation to authoritarian regimes, and how that could influence current negotiations. His past comments and actions suggest a troubling willingness to overlook human rights violations and democratic principles in the interest of personal diplomacy or business interests. By drawing attention to these patterns, advocates can make a compelling case for a foreign policy that prioritizes democratic values and human rights over political expediency. Engaging in campaigns that highlight the importance of these values in U.S. foreign policy can help shift public sentiment and pressure policymakers to uphold a principled stance on international conflicts.
In conclusion, the meeting between Zelensky and Trump represents a crucial juncture in the ongoing war in Ukraine. As Americans, it is our responsibility to ensure that our leaders prioritize democratic principles and the long-term security of nations like Ukraine, rather than seeking quick fixes that could lead to further instability. By engaging in informed activism, promoting education, and fostering dialogue around these issues, we can contribute to a more just and equitable approach to international relations—one that recognizes the importance of sovereignty, security, and human rights for all nations.
To address the complex issues raised in the article regarding the potential meeting between President Zelensky and Donald Trump, and the implications of a peace deal in Ukraine, there are several actions that concerned individuals can take to advocate for a just resolution to the conflict. Here’s a detailed list of ideas:
### Personal Actions You Can Take:
1. **Educate Yourself and Others:** - Stay informed about the ongoing situation in Ukraine by following reputable news sources and analysis from experts in international relations and conflict resolution. - Share information with friends, family, and social media networks to raise awareness about the implications of peace negotiations and the humanitarian impact of the war.
2. **Engage with Local Advocacy Groups:** - Connect with organizations that focus on peacebuilding, human rights, and international solidarity. Examples include Amnesty International or the International Crisis Group. Attend their events or volunteer your time.
3. **Support Ukrainian Communities:** - Contribute to fundraisers or NGOs that support Ukrainian refugees and those affected by the war. Examples include the Ukrainian Red Cross and GlobalGiving's Ukraine Crisis Relief Fund.
### Specific Actions to Advocate for Peace and Justice:
1. **Sign Petitions:** - Sign petitions that call for strong humanitarian support for Ukraine and against any agreements that compromise its sovereignty. Websites like Change.org or MoveOn.org often have relevant petitions. - Example Petition: “Demand Strong Support for Ukraine” on Change.org.
2. **Contact Your Representatives:** - Write to your elected officials to express your views on the situation in Ukraine and urge them to support policies that prioritize humanitarian aid and uphold international law. - **Who to Write:** - Your local congressperson (find their contact details on [House.gov](https://www.house.gov)). - Senators from your state (find their contact details on [Senate.gov](https://www.senate.gov)). - **Example Email Template:** ``` Subject: Urgent Support for Ukraine
Dear [Representative/Senator's Name],
I am writing to express my strong concern regarding the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and the recent discussions around potential peace agreements that may jeopardize the sovereignty of Ukraine. It is crucial that the U.S. government supports Ukraine in its quest for peace while ensuring that any agreements are just and uphold Ukraine's territorial integrity.
Please advocate for robust humanitarian assistance and support measures that prioritize the safety and rights of the Ukrainian people.
Thank you for your attention to this pressing issue.
Sincerely, [Your Name] [Your Address] [Your Email] ```
3. **Participate in Peaceful Demonstrations:** - Join or organize rallies and demonstrations that call for peace in Ukraine and advocate for the rights of its people. Check local community boards or social media for upcoming events.
4. **Engage with Media:** - Write letters to the editor of local newspapers expressing your thoughts on the peace negotiations and the importance of not compromising Ukraine's sovereignty. - Use platforms like social media to amplify your message, tagging relevant public figures or organizations.
5. **Support Policy Advocacy Groups:** - Donate to or volunteer with organizations that work on foreign policy advocacy, such as the Center for American Progress or the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which often provide resources and platforms for addressing issues of war, peace, and human rights.
### Conclusion: By taking these actions, individuals can contribute to a more informed and engaged public dialogue surrounding the situation in Ukraine. It is crucial to advocate for a solution that respects the rights and sovereignty of the Ukrainian people while pushing for humanitarian efforts to alleviate the suffering caused by the ongoing conflict. Through collective action, we can foster a push towards a just and lasting peace.