Italian
Donald Trump chose to raise the stakes on the eve of the Washington summit with Volodymyr Zelenskyy and key European leaders. With a post on Truth Social, he shut two doors that Kyiv considered vital: the reconquest of Crimea and NATO membership
WASHINGTON (USA). “Some things never change!!!” he wrote, turning what sounds like a preemptive diplomatic surrender into a slogan. For Zelenskyy, who had just landed in Washington, it was a heavy blow: the American president not only failed to open new avenues, but also imposed conditions that call into question the very core of Ukraine’s resistance.
The context is already marked by the recent summit in Alaska with Vladimir Putin, which many observers interpreted as a political victory for the Kremlin and a defeat for Washington. Trump continues to describe it as a “great meeting,” claiming to have made “huge progress” without providing details. But the perception in Europe and in Kyiv is the opposite: the talks gave Moscow legitimacy and further isolated Zelenskyy, now forced to chase support in a climate of suspicion and fatigue.
Against this backdrop, European leaders—Keir Starmer, Emmanuel Macron, Friedrich Merz—arrive in Washington, publicly reaffirming the “red lines”: no recognition of Russia’s annexation, no reward for aggression. Behind the official statements, however, lies a clear unease: if Washington forces Kyiv into a quick peace, Europe’s room for maneuver will be minimal. NATO’s umbrella remains the only true shield, and it is precisely on this ground that Trump has placed his veto.
Complicating the picture is a proposal floated by Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff: security guarantees for Kyiv equivalent to NATO’s Article 5, but outside the Alliance. An ambiguous formula, sounding more like a geopolitical compromise than genuine protection. According to Witkoff, Putin would have accepted this idea for the first time. But suspicion remains that this is merely an elegant way to freeze the conflict while leaving Moscow’s territorial gains intact.
Trump presents himself as a “man of peace,” ready to end the war quickly, and shifts the responsibility onto the Ukrainian president: “Zelenskyy can stop it immediately, if he wants.” It is a reversed narrative that risks portraying the victim as stubborn and the aggressor as a reasonable interlocutor. Zelenskyy responded with words of gratitude toward the United States and references to the “shared strength” with allies, but the impression is that his voice is faint in an arena dominated by Trumpian pragmatism.The Washington summit therefore promises to be crucial: on the one hand, the need to maintain a united front and support Kyiv; on the other, the American willingness to explore solutions involving compromises. Within diplomatic circles, the central question remains open: will the path to peace pass through territorial concessions, or will the line of defending Ukraine’s full sovereignty prevail?
