Europe Replaces the USA in Negotiations. Reasons and Consequences for Ukraine

Following Donald Trump’s refusal to participate in negotiations between Ukraine and Russia aimed at ending the war, Europe is stepping in to serve as a mediator. This is a difficult task, but it can be accomplished;

Europe is a more reliable partner for Ukraine than the USA, as it is interested in strengthening our state as a deterrent to Russia. Therefore, the change in the mediator in the negotiations is in Ukraine’s interest.

Europe is finally assuming responsibility for Ukraine as a full-fledged member of the European community. This fact confirms the shift of the primary mediating role in negotiations to end Russia’s war against Ukraine from the USA to the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, as leading European nations.

As is known, on May 22, US Secretary of State M. Rubio officially announced the USA’s withdrawal from the negotiation process between Ukraine and Russia. The reason cited for this decision was the lack of progress in the dialogue. In this situation, Europe takes center stage, having previously been sidelined by D. Trump from direct participation in the USA’s negotiations with Russia.

In this regard, a significant event was the meeting on June 7 in London of President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Prime Minister of the UK Keir Starmer, President of France Emmanuel Macron, and Federal Chancellor of Germany Friedrich Merz. The parties determined the key conditions for restoring a just peace, which include:

• complete and indefinite cessation of hostilities and the establishment of impartial monitoring of the ceasefire;
• establishment of the current front line as the basis for future negotiations on a peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia;
• providing Ukraine with reliable and legally binding security guarantees upon the commencement of negotiations;
• freezing Russian assets in Europe until the end of the war and until Russia pays compensation to Ukraine;
• taking European interests into account in any peace agreements between Ukraine and Russia.

Besides, in a joint statement, the leaders of the four countries emphasized that international borders cannot be changed by force, reaffirmed Ukraine’s right to independently determine its security policy, and expressed their intention to continue providing military and technical assistance to Ukraine. They also supported Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s appeal in his open letter to Putin dated June 4 of this year regarding ending the war through negotiations.

This approach differs significantly from that of Donald Trump, who sought to end the war by pressuring Ukraine to make concessions to Russia without fully taking into account Ukrainian and European interests. This posed a significant problem for Europe, as its security depends directly on the conditions for restoring peace between Ukraine and Russia.

Indeed, ending the war on Russia’s terms – let alone a Russian victory – would pose a direct threat to Europe’s long-term security. Above all, this would mean a decline in Ukraine’s role and significance as a buffer between Europe and Russia. In the view of Europeans, Russia wouldbe able to restore its influence over Ukraine, as it did with Georgia in 2012, when Moscow brought the pro-Russian “Georgian Dream” party to power.

And if Russia destroyed Ukraine as an independent state, it would reach the borders of NATO and the EU in Central-Eastern and Southeastern Europe, and would also be able to use Ukraine’s potential to attack Europe. Evidence of this possibility is Moscow’s actions to force residents of Ukraine’s occupied territories to participate in the war against it. Russia is also mobilizing its industrial base to support the war effort.

To prevent such a scenario, Europe has been providing assistance to Ukraine in its confrontation with Russia since 2014, and has taken this support to a whole new level since 2022. Since 2025, following Donald Trump’s cessation of funding for Ukraine’s defense needs, Europe’s role in addressing this issue has become preeminent.

Evidence of this is the European Union’s allocation of EUR 90 billion to fund measures to assist Ukraine. In turn, NATO leadership is considering plans to allocate $70 billion to Ukraine. If a positive decision is made, these funds will be provided specifically by the Alliance’s European members.

As part of this policy, leaders of the EU and major European countries have been actively working to strengthen Europe’s role in negotiations to end the Russian-Ukrainian war since last spring. However, they were only partially successful in doing so within the Europe-Ukraine–USA–Russia framework. That is, Europe and Ukraine coordinated their positions, which were conveyed to the USA and, through it – to Russia. Nevertheless, it was precisely under Europe’s influence that Donald Trump shifted his stance toward Russia and Ukraine in favor of our country.

The USA’s suspension of its participation in the negotiation process gave Europe the opportunity to fully join it and assume the role of mediator in the dialogue between Russia and Ukraine. Through this, European leaders hope to ensure that the interests of Europe and Ukraine are more fully taken into consideration in the principles and conditions for ending the war.

As mentioned above, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany are taking the most active position on this issue. In the view of the leadership of those countries, favorable circumstances have now emerged that could push Putin toward genuine negotiations rather than mere pretense. The main factors cited are the worsening economic situation in Russia, which is reaching a critical point, as well as the emergence of a stalemate on the front lines.

Ukraine’s efforts to destroy key Russian oil and gas infrastructure and block the so-called “land corridor” to Crimea have also been successful. To date, these actions have already led to shortages of petrol and diesel fuel in the Russian Federation and a complete absence of these fuels in Crimea, which is causing food shortages. The same is happening in other Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine, which are also frontline zones, creating even greater problems there.

All of this is causing dissatisfaction among Russia’s ruling elite and citizens with Putin’s policies, leading to increased socio-political tensions in the country. And in Crimea and southern Ukraine, which Moscow considers its own, a humanitarian catastrophe is looming. At the same time, logistical difficulties for Russian troops in the region have already begun to reduce their combat effectiveness. In particular, they are facing a shortage of ammunition.

In other words, there is a real chance of forcing Putin to the negotiating table. According to European experts, if talks begin in the near future, the war could be ended by the winter of 2026–2027. With this in mind, the EU is beginning to explore possible formats for negotiations. Former Chancellor of the FRG A. Merkel and former Prime Minister of Italy M. Draghi are being mentioned as likely EU representatives.

At the same time, a number of complex factors are hindering the implementation of these plans. First and foremost, this concerns the position of Russian President Putin, who still hopes to win the war or impose his own terms of peace on Ukraine. He cannot achieve his goals by military means, although he is still trying to do so. Therefore, he is counting on Donald Trump, who supposedly views Russia as an equal to the USA, is ready to share the world with it, and is willing to force Ukraine into peace on Russia’s terms.

According to this view, Putin agrees to determine the terms for ending the war exclusively within the Russia–USA framework. Moreover, he believes that Ukraine and Europe must accept them. This is precisely the “spirit of Anchorage” that Putin constantly refers to. He also mentioned it during the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum in early June of this year, in the context of reiterating his demands for the transfer of the entire Donbas region to Russia. An agreement on this issue was supposedly reached between him and Donald Trump during their meeting in Alaska in August 2025.

Such hopes might have been reasonable last year, when D. Trump did indeed support Russia and put pressure on Ukraine. Now they are completely irrational, as D. Trump himself demonstrates through his attitude to Russia as a second-rate country and his arms deliveries to Ukraine.

However, Putin refuses to see the obvious and continues to pin his hopes on Donald Trump. In line with this approach, he views the possibility of negotiations with Europe solely as a means of legitimizing himself, breaking out of international isolation, and restoring Russian-European trade. At this, Putin does not recognize Europe as an equal to Russia and the USA and refuses to compromise with it.

In light of this, some EU officials and European leaders express doubts about the possibility of starting negotiations between Europe and Russia at this time. And some of them are trying to figure out what concessions Moscow might be willing to make. Therefore, Europe currently has neither a unified position nor a unified strategy regarding negotiations with Russia.

However, this is by no means a dead-end situation. On the contrary, there is a growing belief in Europe that Putin can be forced to make peace by increasing aid to Ukraine and further ramping up pressure on Russia through new sanctions. Such steps are yielding tangible results, as evidenced by the worsening of economic and socio-political problems in Russia and shifts on the battlefield in Ukraine’s favor.

Accelerating the process of granting Ukraine EU membership is seen as a powerful factor that will help strengthen Ukraine’s position. At the very least, this will streamline the mechanisms for providing financial, economic, and military-technical assistance to Ukraine. Russia, meanwhile, will find itself in a far more difficult situation, facing not only Ukraine but the entire European Union as its adversary. Although, this is already the case today.

Unfortunately, the EU also lacks a unified position on this issue. Some EU member states believe Ukraine is not ready for EU membership due to corruption issues, others are concerned about increased competition from Ukrainian agricultural products, while some fear a direct confrontation with Russia.

Several options for resolving this situation have been proposed. In particular, Chancellor of Germany F. Merz has put forward an initiative to grant Ukraine so-called “associated membership”. According to his explanation, this format would give Ukraine access to certain EU structures, but in a limited capacity and without voting rights. This does not satisfy Ukraine.

Nevertheless, Europe’s efforts to establish a dialogue with Russia are not vain. They create another channel of influence over Putin and, more broadly, the leadership of the Russian Federation. As the economic situation in Russia worsens and the position of Russian troops on the front lines deteriorates, this channel will become increasingly effective.

In fact, the United States also remains on the side of Ukraine and Europe. It is merely reallocating its forces in light of the specific circumstances. Thus, as a bipolar world order led by the United States and China takes shape, America is focusing its efforts on maintaining the strategic advantages it currently holds over China.

To date, their relationship is characterized as geopolitical competition, but it could escalate into a standoff and even confrontation. The US leadership understands this threat and is taking measures to enhance its capabilities to counter China, including in the military sphere. This is precisely the rationale behind Donald Trump’s decision to reorient part of the USA’s forces from the European to the Asia-Pacific (Indo-Pacific) theater of operations.

It is clear that this process will continue even after D. Trump, as China, as a rival to the USA, is not going anywhere and will only grow stronger, becoming America’s primary military adversary. Therefore, the USA will be forced to pay increasing attention to China and focus resources on containing it at the expense of other areas of American security.

Thus, Russia is receding into the background for the USA. Unlike the Soviet Union, the RF cannot be considered America’s equal. The only area where they are on equal footing is nuclear capability. But the USA does not take this issue into account, since Russia’s use of nuclear weapons would inevitably trigger a retaliatory strike, resulting in its destruction. The Russian elite is aware of this and would not allow Putin to carry out his nuclear threats against America, Europe, and even Ukraine.

Russia’s conventional forces pose no threat whatsoever to the USA, as it is separated from the USA by an ocean. And Russia’s war against Ukraine demonstrates that Europe can handle it on its own without America, provided it is properly prepared. This is currently being actively implemented through programs to expand NATO’s forward presence in Europe, strengthen border security with Russia, and carry out a large-scale rearmament of European countries. Moreover, Europe was prompted to do this both by Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and by the USA’s demands that it assume greater responsibility for its own security.

These circumstances allow the USA to focus on containing China by reducing its role in military countermeasures against Russia in the European theater and transferring this function to Europe. Starting in 2025, this will be implemented in practice through the establishment of a new European and Euro-Atlantic security system with Ukraine’s participation. At this, the USA continues to assist Europe in maintaining its military presence on its territory and even increasing the number of US troops in Poland. In addition, the USA intends to deploy additional nuclear munitions in European countries.

At the same time, the United States has signaled its intention to continue providing assistance to Ukraine. According to a statement by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the United States is not a neutral party and will not cease supplying weapons to Ukraine or imposing sanctions on Russia.

This USA’s position was also confirmed by US Secretary of Defense P. Hegseth on the sidelines of the Asia Security Summit in Singapore on June 7 of this year. According to him, Washington will find a way to help Ukraine defend itself. As the head of the US Department of Defense pointed out, the USA is currently changing its production methods for all “critical munitions” so that American companies can supply them “not just a little more, but much more across the entire spectrum”, including to Ukraine. He also noted that the USA continues to study Ukraine’s experience in the use of unmanned systems on the battlefield and is increasing investment in this sector.

Therefore, D. Trump’s refusal to participate in negotiations to end the Russian-Ukrainian war is not a sign of waning attention to Ukraine, but rather a tactical move to prevent further damage to his image ahead of the US congressional elections. Indeed, he has evidently come to realize that his mediating role in ending the war is not yielding quick results. Given this, not only can he not use it to boost his approval ratings, but, on the contrary, it is damaging his image.

Added to this are the negative consequences of the USA and Israel’s war against Iran, which have led to rising global oil prices and higher petrol and diesel prices in the United States itself. Moreover, D. Trump cannot force Iran to capitulate, and thus cannot quickly end this war either. This once again demonstrates the failure of the US President’s attempts to resolve complex problems through reckless actions, relying on America’s total superiority over its adversaries.

Under the current circumstances, D. Trump is offloading the problem of the Russian-Ukrainian war – which he cannot possibly resolve – and keeping the Iranian one for himself, which he might still manage to resolve. At the same time, he is not leaving Ukraine to face Russia on its own, since 70% of Americans support our country. Therefore, if he were to simply abandon Ukraine, his approval rating would plummet.

All the more so because on June 5 of this year, the US House of Representatives passed a bill on military aid to Ukraine and the expansion of sanctions against Russia. It provides for the allocation of additional funds for Ukraine’s defense needs and the imposition of new sanctions against Russian companies and financial institutions.

Consequently, the de facto failure of negotiations between Ukraine and Russia regarding the terms for ending the war forced Donald Trump to cease his mediation efforts, as he began to lose public support due to his inability to secure peace. Instead, D. Trump is focusing his efforts on resolving issues with Iran, which can still be accomplished relatively quickly.

In this situation, Europe is increasingly becoming not only Ukraine’s main partner but also one of the key players capable of influencing the course of the war and the future peace agreement. As part of these efforts, Europe is taking on the responsibility of ending the war near its border.

The main obstacle to restoring peace remains Putin’s stance, as he still hopes for support from D. Trump due to the latter’s supposed willingness and ability to force Ukraine to make concessions in Russia’s favor. Therefore, he is not yet engaging in full-fledged dialogue with Europe, which, in his view, is not worthy of it.

At the same time, the further deterioration of Russia’s economic situation and setbacks on the front lines could change Putin’s attitude to dialogue with Europe. This, along with continued US aid to Europe and Ukraine, will force Moscow to seek other channels for reaching compromises with Ukraine.

Yurii Ilchenko,
Institute for Global Politics