In the news
On 27 February, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer during his visit to Washington praised US President Donald Trump for creating a "moment of tremendous opportunity" for peace in Ukraine but warned “…it can't be peace that rewards the aggressor.” While Trump hinted at the possibility of returning some seized Ukrainian territory, he offered no clear security guarantee. 

On 28 February, during the meeting between Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Trump and US Vice President JD Vance, Trump expressed frustration over what he perceived as a lack of appreciation from Ukraine. He said: "You should be more grateful for the support we've provided.” Zelenskyy responded: “We are fighting and dying for our freedom and yours.” The leaders clashed over a proposed critical minerals agreement. Trump stressed for US access to Ukraine's resources as part of the support package, which was denied by Zelenskyy. Lastly, Trump warned that the US will no longer support Ukraine.

On 2 March, European leaders gathered to address the situation in Ukraine. The outcome of the summit was the decision to increase support for Ukraine. Three objectives highlighted by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte were: “Immediate support; Sustainable peace; Enhanced defence spending.” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen introduced the "ReArm Europe" plan, aiming to boost defence capabilities among member states. This initiative proposes up to EUR 800 billion to enhance military readiness and address emerging threats. The summit ended with Starmer proposing the formation of the “Coalition of the willing.” The initiative will involve a group of countries prepared to take decisive action, potentially deploying peacekeeping forces to Ukraine.

On 3 March, in response to the EU leader summit, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov argued that the funding pledges made by European leaders were not aimed at achieving peace but to prolong the war. He stated that these commitments do not contribute to a peaceful resolution and stressed the need for efforts to change Zelenskyy's approach to the situation. 

On 4 March, in a joint Congress session, Trump delivered an address hinting at the immediate need to end the Ukraine conflict and military aid. He stated Zelenskyy’s readiness for peace talks and willingness for the critical minerals deal and criticised Europe for its financial decisions to make the US outspend. On 5 March, Zelenskyy said: “It was time to make things right.” 

Issues at large
First, Ukraine’s tough diplomatic and ground situation. The recent diplomatic engagements indicate a fragmented approach towards achieving peace in Ukraine. The clash between Trump and Zelenskyy showcases the lack of consensus on ending the war. Trump's focus on immediate ceasefire negotiations diverges with Ukraine's demand for a security guarantee and the full restoration of its territorial integrity. It has created tension between the two. Since Trump’s return, Ukraine has been in a tricky balancing act between seeking immediate peace and a long-term security guarantee to deter future aggression. The divide in the EU-US approach worsens Kyiv's dilemma. Zelenskyy's firmness in not agreeing to give away Ukrainian territories contradicts Trump's willingness to delve into partial territorial compromises.

Second, Europe’s harsh reality. European leaders have made efforts to fill the gap left by the US through discussions on deploying a peacekeeping force. The UK and France are at the forefront leading the “Coalition of the Willing,” aiming to establish a Europe-led force to safeguard any future ceasefire. Simultaneously, European countries are aiming to boost defence spending, coordinate military aid, and find ways for economic cooperation with Ukraine. The differences which had existed earlier over sanctions, military aid and Ukraine’s EU membership have now narrowed to coming together to secure a peace that supports Ukraine. 

Third, the pressure from US and Trump. Trump’s decision to temporarily pause military aid to Ukraine signals a potential shift in the US approach. His proposal to access critical minerals has been victorious. However, this move does not promise Ukraine security guarantees. The suspension of aid only increases Ukraine’s vulnerability, especially at a time when Russian attacks are intensifying. 
 
In perspective
First, a fragile road for peace in Ukraine. The progress is no longer towards supporting Ukraine on the ground but rather finding a swift resolution. Europe’s late response and the US’s daunting moves have mounted severe pressure on Ukraine to compromise its territorial integrity. Europe’s post-war promises do not guarantee Ukraine from future aggression. The outcome of this conflict resolution seemingly undermines international norms over sovereignty and national interest. It adds benefit to the authoritarian systems, leaving Ukraine with a strangled peace.

Second, Europe moving towards a stronger defence armory. The “Coalition of the Willing” aims to provide security guarantees to Ukraine. However, without clear US military backing, this initiative risks being only a symbolic sign rather than a concrete preventive against future Russian aggression. Sustaining European unity is also challenged by varying national interests, financial strains, and the need to balance diplomacy without bargaining for Ukraine's sovereignty. This marks a significant step towards European autonomy and reshaping its role in global security.

Third, flip switch US. The recent talks show how Trump is force-pushing for a quick end to the Ukraine conflict with a stern stand for a ceasefire negotiation rather than military aid. This conditioning pushed Ukraine to pursue peace signaling a shift from prolonging conflict to accelerated diplomacy. The flip-switch strategy of the US reduced its entangled situation and pressured Ukraine into negotiations which could favour Russia. This leaves out European allies' concerns over the lasting of the peace settlement with future security risks.