Imagem criada com IA

## Overview

It is possible that Monday’s White House meeting could prove more decisive for Ukraine’s future—and for Europe’s security—than last Friday’s US-Russia summit in Alaska. The Alaska encounter produced no ceasefire, no sanctions, and no major announcements. Yet observers say the matter now remains open to behind-the-scenes deals, depending on what Washington is prepared to offer Kyiv.

## Diplomatic aim in Washington

Ukraine and its European partners are intent on delivering two messages to President Trump: Ukraine must be directly involved in any peace agreement, and any settlement must be backed by “cast-iron” security guarantees. The assembled leaders in Washington—President Volodymyr Zelensky alongside Britain’s Sir Keir Starmer, France’s Emmanuel Macron, and Germany’s Chancellor Merz, among others—seek to prevent any deal from being struck that sidelines Kyiv or erodes Ukraine’s independence.

Trump’s receptiveness to Starmer is noted by Washington observers, and Starmer’s role will be closely watched as a test of diplomatic tact in a moment of high stakes. The presence of Mark Rutte, seen by some as a conduit in Western circles, is also part of the dynamic. The White House has shown visible tensions with Macron over his approach to a Palestinian state, underscoring how personal rapport between leaders can influence negotiations.

## What a peace settlement could look like—and what it cannot

The core question is whether a framework could end the war without Ukraine yielding more territory than Kyiv is willing to relinquish. Western allies have long insisted that borders cannot be altered by force and that Ukraine’s constitution forbids ceding land. Ukraine has been adamant that Donbas and Crimea should not be traded away.

Some observers say a resolution might hinge on robust security guarantees—akin to collective-defense principles—that deter future Russian aggression and preserve Ukraine’s independence. In this framing, victory would be measured not only by land recovered but by the durability of deterrence. The notion of “security guarantees” being offered in exchange for limited concessions has been floated publicly, though the design and credibility of such guarantees remain contested.

## The Donbas balance and the price of peace

Russia currently holds a large share of Donbas, and Crimea remains a non-negotiable red line for Kyiv. If any agreement asks Ukraine to concede the remaining 30 percent of Donetsk Oblast still outside its control, questions arise about whether Western defenses would then be sufficient to protect the rest of Ukraine, particularly as forces re-group in the years after any lull in fighting.

## The Coalition of the Willing—and what remains uncertain

Earlier talk of tens of thousands of boots on the ground has receded. The current emphasis is better described as safeguarding skies and seas and assisting Kyiv in rebuilding its army, rather than committing large troop deployments. Yet even with a ceasefire, many military experts warn that Vladimir Putin could reconstitute his forces and, within three to four years, be in a position to threaten anew. If that scenario unfolds, any peace would face renewed strain, and Western air forces could become the first line of defense against a resurgent Russian advance.

In short, the White House meeting could be pivotal for Ukraine’s immediate security and for European stability, depending on the nature of any security guarantees and Kyiv’s willingness to engage in negotiations that preserve its sovereignty.

Source: Full Article BBC