Follow us on social

Zelensky White House Keith Kellogg

Zelensky White House meeting could spell end of the war

If there is a deal, he should be prepared to take it

Europe

If Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky cannot agree in principle with the contours of a peace deal mapped out by President Trump, then the war will continue into 2026. I’d encourage him to take the deal, even if it may cause him to lose power.

The stakes couldn’t be higher ahead of the showdown in the Oval Office today between President Donald Trump and President Zelensky, supported by EU leaders and the Secretary General of NATO.

Following the Alaska Summit, President Trump has articulated the contours of a peace plan that he discussed with President Vladimir Putin. At stake, a long-overdue and much needed end to the blood-letting that has killed or injured one and a half million people so far across both sides.

Can the president get it over the line?

A reported key U.S. concession, hinted at by Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, involves “game-changing” security guarantees for Ukraine that would have the effect of Article 5 coverage without membership of NATO. Zelensky has welcomed this concession and the European “coalition of the willing” issued a statement which “commended” President Trump’s concession on U.S. support.

This is being viewed as a success, as obtaining an American security backstop has been a key aim since the coalition of the willing was formed in March, in the aftermath of President Zelensky’s drubbing in the Oval Office.

But other aspects of the U.S. position will cause concern among the coalition and their transatlantic partners. Ahead of today’s meeting, President Trump has indicated that Ukraine won’t get back Crimea and won’t go into NATO. While the president’s pronouncements on the war have ebbed and flowed, on these two points he has remained consistent. He argued earlier this year that Ukraine should be prepared to recognize Russian occupation of Crimea. Right from the get go, the Trump administration has suggested that Ukraine’s NATO path is unrealistic.

What is different today is that the president has drawn this red line having eyeballed President Putin in Alaska and judged that the Russian position is not going to change. While those European leaders supporting President Zelensky at today’s meeting might press for a softening of this line, it seems, at this late stage, that Trump’s mind is made up.

In some ways the Crimea issue is the least problematic, as the draft Istanbul agreement of spring 2022 allowed for a dialogue about the future status of the peninsula. It also, of course, provided for Ukrainian neutrality and non-membership of NATO. However, after Boris Johnson and others encouraged Zelensky to keep fighting rather than accept the deal, Western leaders have dug in fixed positions on Ukraine’s supposed right to join the military alliance.

When it comes down to it, this war has always been a battle of wills between Russia on one side and the West about the continued eastern expansion of NATO.

If President Trump persuades Zelensky and European leaders into a deal that takes NATO off the table, even if security guarantees are included, it will represent a crushing embarrassment for the Western military alliance that accounts for 55% of global military spending. This will have long term political consequences for mainstream political parties in Europe who have pushed the NATO line to the hilt, and signed up to vast increases in military spending, at the expense of domestic spending priorities.

But I judge, in any case, that NATO is not the most contentious issue to be discussed today.

The biggest sticking point will undoubtedly be the suggestion that Ukraine give up its remaining foothold in Donetsk oblast in return for Russia vacating its much smaller footholds in Kharkiv and Sumy. On the surface, that does not appear a fair trade. Zelensky has flatly refused to concede territory. Ceding unconquered lands in the Donbas that the Ukrainian Army has defended valiantly and at great cost would represent an act of political suicide on his part.

At the start of this year, Zelensky’s election prospects hung in the balance, a commentator at the Kyiv School of Economics remarking that success was contingent upon “the exact terms of the ceasefire, namely, the public perception of them as a ‘victory,’ ‘honorable draw' or 'defeat.'"

Since then, more Ukrainian towns have been swallowed up by Russia’s advance. Few people would be able to see the loss of what is left as anything other than dishonorable defeat. Facing an already slim prospect of re-election as and when a post-war presidential plebiscite is held in Ukraine, this would almost certainly doom Zelensky to lose power.

The flip side, of course, is that one more year of war would take Russia much closer to the complete occupation of Donetsk oblast anyway. The only difference being that possibly hundreds of thousands of additional Ukrainian and Russian troops would die in the intervening period of bloody, attritional warfare.

The only scenarios in which that didn’t happen would be the involvement of European troops on the battlefield, the sudden implosion of Russia’s economy or a change of power in Moscow. While much discussed, none of these have ever looked remotely likely. So, the statesmanlike thing for Zelensky to do would be to look into the future, decide that the best interests in Ukraine lay in cutting his losses, and settle with peace based on concessions that may come at a heavy personal cost.

Having invested so much in supporting Zelensky, European leaders won’t want to see him fail. And yet there are costs to them too, in supporting him holding out for another year of war the outcome of which is increasingly predictable. As I have pointed out several times before, Europe cannot afford to keep funding the Ukrainian war effort.

If President Trump can align Europe around the need to bring this dreadful war to a close it will represent a monumental achievement on his part. The cold truth is that no one is winning here, not Russia, NATO and most definitely, not Ukraine.

Securing the peace is often tougher than prosecuting a war. In the best interests of his magnificent country, I would encourage Zelensky to take the deal.


Top photo credit: Handout - Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, left, speaks with U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for Ukraine, Ret. General Keith Kellogg prior to their meeting, August 18, 2025 in Washington, D.C. Zelenskyy met with Kellogg before the planned meeting with President Donald Trump later in the day. Photo by Ukrainian Presidential Press Office via ABACAPRESS.COM
Europe
2023-01-30t130449z_981831287_rc211z92bpxa_rtrmadp_3_israel-usa-blinken-scaled
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken delivers a statement upon arrival at Israel's Ben Gurion Airport near Tel Aviv, on January 30, 2023. RONALDO SCHEMIDT/Pool via REUTERS

Dem-aligned think tank blasted for Blinken appointment to board

Washington Politics

A human rights organization is demanding answers about why the Center for American Progress — an influential center left think tank — awarded a board seat to former Secretary of State Antony Blinken despite his alleged complicity in war crimes in Gaza, according to an open letter shared exclusively with Responsible Statecraft.

The letter, drafted by DAWN, accuses Blinken of providing Israel with “essential military, political and public support to ensure it could continue its atrocities” in Gaza. “We believe that Mr. Blinken is not an appropriate choice to serve as a board member of an organization that aims to ‘promote peace and shared global prosperity’ in light of his well-documented role in aiding and abetting Israeli war crimes,” the letter says.

keep readingShow less
Kim Jong Un
Top image credit: North Korean leader Kim Jong Un visits the country's nuclear material production base and nuclear weapons institute, at an undisclosed location in North Korea, in this photo released by North Korea's official Korean Central News Agency on January 29, 2025. KCNA via REUTERS

Reality check: North Korea won’t give up its nukes

Asia-Pacific

During North Korea’s parliamentary session last week, Kim Jong Un, the North Korean leader, delivered a speech expressing his clear willingness to engage in diplomacy with the United States. But under one strict precondition: the United States must stop seeking to denuclearize North Korea.

“Personally, I still have good memories of U.S. President Trump,” Kim said in his speech. He added, “If the U.S. drops its hollow obsession with denuclearization and wants to pursue peaceful coexistence with North Korea based on the recognition of reality, there is no reason for us not to sit down with the U.S.”

keep readingShow less
Joint-base-lewis-mcchord-scaled
Top image credit: The DoD found high levels of dangerous chemicals in the "PFAS family" around several military bases, including JOINT BASE LEWIS-MCCHORD, Wash., pictured here. (U.S. Air Force Photo/Abner Guzman)

DOD has money for boondoggles but not clean water for bases?

Military Industrial Complex

The Defense Department plans to delay cleaning up a class of toxic "forever chemicals” that its activities have left at and around military bases across the country — even as it pursues other financially wasteful endeavors that do little to advance, or may even be counterproductive to, U.S. national security.

The Pentagon estimates it will cost $7 billion per year to clean contamination from perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, found in a firefighting foam the military still uses. This cost estimate, despite increasing in recent years, ultimately amounts to a small fraction of the DoD’s budget, which grew to a staggering $895 billion for FY2025.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.