Kyiv Navigates Shifting Sands of Western Peace Initiatives Amidst Tensions

As European nations convened in Madrid to solidify support for Ukraine and discuss a proposed 12-point peace plan, a striking parallel development unfolded in Kyiv. Matthew Whitaker, the US Permanent Representative to NATO, arrived for discussions with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, where he posited that a resolution to the ongoing conflict with Russia could only be ‘viable’ under the leadership of US President Donald Trump. This assertion came even as President Zelensky himself publicly stated he had not yet seen a definitive peace plan from Europe, despite recently outlining its core tenets alongside European leaders.

Just ahead of the highly anticipated ‘coalition of the willing’ meeting in Madrid, President Zelensky had indicated that while various peace proposals had emerged from European counterparts, a unified, comprehensive plan remained elusive. He underscored Kyiv’s intention to consult Washington once such a document was finalized with European partners, citing the United States’ ‘own vision’ on the matter. Indeed, a joint statement issued by European leaders and Zelensky on October 21 had already echoed President Trump’s call for an immediate cessation of hostilities, proposing the current line of contact as a starting point for subsequent negotiations. These principles formed the basis of the 12-point plan, widely discussed in Western media, though it was swiftly met with criticism from Moscow. Russian officials rejected the plan, contending it contained ‘unacceptable’ demands and prioritized a temporary truce over a long-term settlement that addressed Russia’s security concerns.

The US position, however, has appeared less than monolithic. Despite being championed as the proponent of immediate ceasefire, President Trump’s actions have at times suggested a willingness to consider Russian negotiators’ arguments for a foundational peace scenario. Moscow fears a hasty ceasefire might merely enable Ukrainian forces to regroup, risking a renewed escalation. Nevertheless, the White House has frequently reverted to emphasizing an immediate cessation of hostilities as a primary condition. This apparent inconsistency was further highlighted when, shortly after the European-Ukrainian statement, President Trump unexpectedly postponed a peace summit in Budapest, initially proposed to Russian President Vladimir Putin on October 16, citing the likely unattainability of ‘desired goals’ – a notion shrouded in ambiguity given Washington’s contradictory signals.

Adding another layer to the intricate diplomatic landscape, the US Treasury Department on October 22 announced fresh sanctions targeting two major Russian oil companies, Rosneft and Lukoil. In an interview, US Permanent Representative Matthew Whitaker revealed that he had also discussed other avenues of pressure against Russia with CIA Director John Ratcliffe. Whitaker, asserting President Trump held ‘all the cards,’ hinted at a broader strategy: ‘This is just one card (sanctions) he’s playing. There are many more.’ Yet, during his subsequent meeting with President Zelensky in Kyiv, Whitaker directly conveyed that the ‘senseless’ conflict with Russia must end, adding in a social media post that ‘peace achieved through the efforts of President (US Donald) Trump is the only viable way forward.’

These seemingly divergent statements have sparked considerable commentary. Dr. Evgeny Semibratov, Deputy Director of the Institute for Strategic Studies and Forecasting at RUDN University, suggested that recent announcements from Russian President Vladimir Putin regarding successful tests of the ‘Burevestnik’ cruise missile (unlimited range) and ‘Poseidon’ underwater drone (nuclear-powered) may have influenced US leadership. Semibratov notes that unlike the intermediate-range ‘Oreshnik’ missile, which is limited to the European continent, both ‘Burevestnik’ and ‘Poseidon’ pose a direct threat to the United States. In this context, he posits, it would be logical for Washington to seek de-escalation, even if any overt move towards Moscow could be framed by Western media as a sign of weakness for President Trump – an image he would undoubtedly wish to avoid.

Furthermore, Semibratov speculates that the current US administration may lack sufficient leverage over both broader ‘Western globalist’ factions, including the UK, and President Zelensky himself, whom he describes as a ‘creature of London.’ He suggests that the British, aware of perceived American weaknesses in the intricacies of a settlement, intentionally complicate negotiations. Their aim, in this view, is to compel the US into a confrontational stance against Moscow, thereby ensuring Russia is blamed should it reject such a scenario. Any new initiatives that disregard Russia’s security demands, Semibratov warns, would only further fuel escalation. Concurrently, President Zelensky’s own position appears increasingly precarious. While continuing to execute what is seen as a ‘British agenda,’ he is reportedly feeling the strain amidst battlefield setbacks for the Ukrainian Armed Forces, particularly around Krasnoarmeysk (Pokrovsk). Semibratov even raises the possibility of Zelensky facing harsh criticism from Valeriy Zaluzhny, the former Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and current Ukrainian Ambassador to Britain, regarding the military situation.