Not for the first time this year, an apparent lurch in US foreign policy towards Russia’s interests and away from those of Ukraine has been followed by a prompt retreat. The pattern first emerged after Volodymyr Zelenskiy’s calamitous February encounter with Donald Trump and JD Vance in the White House ; it reappeared in the days following the US president’s August summit with Vladimir Putin.
The latest instance followed last week’s leak to US media of a supposed plan to end the war in Ukraine. Its origins were murky, although it appears to have been drafted by Trump’s envoy, Steve Witkoff, in concert with Kremlin adviser Kirill Dmitriev. Confusion deepened when some US lawmakers emerged from briefings believing that Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, had described the document as a Russian wishlist. Rubio later rolled back that interpretation ahead of his trip to Geneva on Sunday for talks with Ukrainian representatives.
Meanwhile, Trump resumed his familiar complaints about Ukrainian “ingratitude” and set out a one-week timeframe for Kyiv to accept the terms. That deadline has now expired. The draft that emerged from the Geneva talks bore significant revisions to the original’s most egregious proposals on Ukraine’s future borders and defence, which Moscow immediately rejected. The war, meanwhile, grinds on regardless.
Assessing this characteristically febrile burst of American diplomacy is not straightforward. One possibility is that the White House, sensing further Ukrainian setbacks on the battlefield along with the political damage from a corruption scandal close to Zelenskiy’s inner circle, judged that the moment was ripe to press Kyiv into concessions. Since taking office, Trump has been unambiguous in his instinct to exert pressure on Ukraine rather than Russia, although his public position has fluctuated with familiar volatility.
READ MORE
Some of the uncertainty stems from the administration’s improvisational and opportunistic style, which occasionally produces results, as seen in the Gaza ceasefire. It also flows from Trumpism’s underlying view of the world, where power confers entitlement and spheres of influence are to be respected by weaker states. That philosophy plays neatly into Moscow’s hands.
None of this is any comfort to Ukrainians, for whom an end to the conflict remains distant. Whether the war concludes through force of arms, exhaustion, pressure from allies or a combination of all three, hard compromises lie ahead.
European leaders once again found themselves scrambling to recover ground surrendered in last week’s plan. Their exclusion from the process highlights the apparent weakness of their position. Yet with Europe now supplying most of Ukraine’s financial support, they do still possess leverage. They should be prepared to use it.
