NEGOTIATION TRIANGLE

The intense phase of talks between the US and Russia, and the US and Kiev, which began several weeks ago, was accompanied by lengthy phone conversations between Presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin and a meeting between Trump and Zelensky.

All these contacts were meant to define a framework within which the parties could move toward a common goal—achieving peace in Ukraine. Or, more precisely, shaping the contours of European security. This is why the European side’s attempts to participate in these co-ordinations have been repeatedly rebuffed.

"A turnaround."

In this context, Brussels’ position is noteworthy. Following the latest telephone conversation between the US and Russian leaders, the head of European diplomacy, Kaja Kallas, claimed that Russia did not want peace in Ukraine. She added that her scepticism was shared by most EU countries. The harsh statements against Moscow emanating from the European capital contrast sharply with the actions of the United States, which seeks to build dialogue with Russia, thereby strengthening its negotiating position and influencing the Kremlin’s conduct.

Unsurprisingly, the Russian Federation prefers engaging with Washington as the most reliable partner and discussing European security issues without Europe’s involvement. This dynamic underscores how Brussels is undermining its own standing, rendering itself an undesirable negotiator for Moscow.

Effectively, Europe has ceded the initiative to Washington. The US, interpreting European security through its own lens and largely disregarding EU interests, opts to negotiate directly with Moscow. Under these circumstances, neither their adversaries nor even their allies see value in including Europe at the negotiating table—at least for now. There is a justified belief that Brussels’ presence at this stage could derail the talks altogether.

Unable to directly influence the negotiation process, the Europeans have turned to engaging with Kiev, which is tangentially involved in the talks and occasionally voices Brussels’ interests.

The price of European security

The strained relations between the EU and the US are also evident in their economic interactions, where dialogues between nominal allies often devolve into fierce disputes.

The European Union has openly aspired to become a bloc with distinct security functions, capable of independently shaping military and political processes in Europe. This ambition was clear at the EU Heads of State summit on March 21 in Brussels, where the central topic was European defence financing. Consensus on the agenda was hard-won due to stark disagreements among participants. The final plan’s name was even altered from ReArm Europe to Readiness 2030 to appease critics, including Spain and Italy.

Despite objections from Sweden and the Netherlands—cautiously backed by Germany—the majority approved the idea of a new EU common loan for defence spending. However, implementation faces significant hurdles due to financial constraints.

In 2028, repayments will begin on the previous €800 billion collective EU loan allocated for post-COVID-19 recovery. Originally, these costs were to be covered by new taxes, but financial struggles across member states have stalled progress. Without an alternative solution, debt repayments could consume 10-20% of the EU budget, jeopardising new initiatives, including defence.

The summit also explored ways to "influence the negotiations" on Ukraine led by the US. Media reports indicate the discussion lasted just two hours, with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky addressing participants via video link. No concrete decisions emerged, as Hungary blocked the final document on supporting Ukraine, which was endorsed by only 26 countries.

Meanwhile, individual states continue to aid Ukraine in various forms, ostensibly to bolster its resistance and negotiating leverage—though not without ulterior motives.

Settling for war

In early March, Bruno Kahl, head of Germany’s intelligence agency (BND), warned that Russia might test NATO’s Article 5 collective security clause, suggesting the risk would grow if fighting in Ukraine ceased.

Kahl argued that if the war ended before 2029-2030, Russia could threaten Europe sooner. These remarks drew mixed reactions in Ukraine, where politicians accused him of prolonging the conflict for self-serving reasons, indifferent to current sacrifices.

Against this backdrop, Brussels’ and individual European nations’ military and financial support for Ukraine appears aimed at proving to Washington and Moscow that the EU remains a force to be reckoned with—one capable of influencing the conflict. The underlying goal is to secure a seat at the negotiating table and project strength. After all, these talks will determine not only Ukraine’s future but Europe’s as well.

Current and future generations of Europeans are unlikely to accept key decisions about continental peace being made without EU involvement.

Meanwhile, US Presidential Special Envoy Steven Whitkoff sought to allay fears about Moscow’s ambitions, stating that Russian President Vladimir Putin has no intention of seizing "all of Europe." "I just don’t see that he [Putin] wants to take over all of Europe. This is a very different situation than during World War II," he said, noting the absence of NATO at that time.

Myths and realities of the negotiation process

Following Trump and Putin’s phone calls on February 12 and March 18, the two sides seem to have aligned on a common approach and are adhering to it. Trump described their dialogue as "rational."

Ceasefire discussions cover multiple parameters, from energy infrastructure strikes to military operations in the Black Sea.

Parallel talks are underway with Ukraine. On March 19, Zelensky and Trump spoke by phone. Zelensky stated, "Ukraine and the US should continue working together to achieve a real end to the war and lasting peace. We believe that with America, under President Trump’s leadership, lasting peace can be achieved this year."

Pursuant to these talks, a US delegation met Ukrainian officials in Saudi Arabia on March 23 and Russian representatives on March 24. Both sides accused the other of violating preliminary agreements, casting a shadow over the outcomes.

Zelensky reiterated doubts about Moscow’s commitment. Rustem Umerov, head of Ukraine’s delegation in Riyadh, cited agreements with the US to ensure Black Sea navigation safety and a ban on energy infrastructure strikes. The Kremlin conditioned these measures on the US lifting sanctions targeting Russian banks, fertiliser suppliers, and agricultural exports.

Trump struck an optimistic tone about the Jeddah talks, noting "significant progress." Zelensky, however, claimed the Russians set maximalist demands "to have room to retreat later," adding, "The US is neither for us nor for Russia—they are somewhere in the middle."

Experts argue the agreements offer Kiev little practical benefit. While Ukrainian forces have exploited gaps in Russian air defences to strike energy infrastructure, Moscow remains focused on offensive operations in Donbas—a topic conspicuously absent from the talks.

US representatives also confirmed that territorial concessions by Ukraine are under discussion.

These are the realities of negotiations and contemporary geopolitics. One may disapprove, but they cannot be ignored.