Cutting off financial aid to Ukraine is the only way to force peace talks to end the war
Self-licking summits in London and elsewhere achieve nothing
Below my latest article in Responsible Statecraft on the currently moribund peace process for Ukraine. With a possible end to the war against Iran in sight, I hope the Americans can reinject energy into the Ukraine peace process; the Europeans have shown themselves unable to do so, and I expect little to emerge from the E3 Ambassadors’ meeting at the Russian MFA yesterday.
Lots of people talk about there being a single peace deal for Ukraine, but in truth it will be far more complicated than that, requiring separate deals on an end to the hostilities, Ukraine’s EU future, NATO, and on the future EU/UK relationship with Russia after the war ends.
Meanwhile, Zelensky is already asking for another $20 billion in military aid, hot on the heels of the EU finally agreeing its 90 billion package after the Hungarian elections removed the final barrier to aid. Zelensky has absolutely no desire to see the cash cow of war end and I continue to be amazed (though not surprised) that European leaders continue to pander to his every ask, while forced mobilisation becomes ever more repressive on the streets of Ukraine, corruption remains rampant, and the neo-Nazis have an ever tighter grip on the Ukrainian military and intelligence apparatus.
We should stop sending money to Ukraine. That appears the only way to force Zelensky’s hand and bring real energy to the peace process. I suspect, however, Ursula von der Leyen and co will continue to stack up debt to keep the war rumbling on.
I hope you find my article interesting.
The time is ripe for European leaders to set aside the self-licking summits in European capitals and get in the room with the U.S., Ukraine, and Russia to orchestrate a modern-day Helsinki Conference.
A durable peace for Ukraine will require several interlocking agreements, each of which will be incredibly difficult to negotiate, but all of which will be vital if we are to avoid a general war in Europe.
In a recent post on X, former U.S. diplomat Dan Fried, commenting on the June 7 E3 Leaders’ Statement on peace in Ukraine, said, “If Russia wants to end the war it can, you know, end the war.”
It’s important to pause here and note that Fried was the State Department Coordinator for Sanctions Policy from 2013 until 2017. I know, because I was directly involved at the time, that Fried is the architect of the policy of making Russia sanctions permanent by linking them to the full implementation of the Minsk II agreement, which Russia and Ukraine interpreted in radically different ways. The main aim of sanctions conditionality was therefore to delay any possibility of peaceful settlement, and in that it succeeded.
Eleven years on, Fried’s remark echoes a common line of argument in pro-war Western circles: that Russia could simply end the war without a negotiated settlement. And yet an unconditional about-face by Russia is quite obviously never going to happen, and so the comment serves only to prolong the war.
The E3 statement flowed from the same logic. It offered nothing new or unexpected. Critically, it reiterated the line that roughly $300 billion of Russian assets will remain immobilized until Russia “ceases its war of aggression and compensates Ukraine for the damage caused by the war.”
The current World Bank estimate of the cost of reconstruction and recovery in Ukraine stands at $588 billion. So, the E3 position amounts to confirmation that Russia will never see its money again and moreover will still have $288 billion left to pay.
This, I fear, is another example of Fried’s logic — that peace in Ukraine is indeed possible, but only on terms that Russia would be unable or unwilling to accept. As Western mainstream media carpet bombs the world with news that Ukraine is turning the tide in the war and could still win, then the calculus may be among Western policy hawks that continuing the war is no bad thing.
It’s certainly clear that no one appears in a rush. The E3 statement follows a sixteen-month period of endless and repetitive meetings by European leaders and Zelensky in which everyone violently agrees, but to which the Russians are never invited.
Only in recent months, notably since President Donald Trump’s Alaska Summit with Putin, has the topic of a negotiated end to the Ukraine war slowly bubbled to the surface in Europe. President Alexander Stubb of Finland, President Emmanuel Macron of France, Prime Minister Bart de Wever of Belgium have at various times dipped their toes in the water of suggesting diplomatic talks with Russia.
Last week, Zelensky himself issued an open letter to Putin about a possible meeting.
But, being that the letter contained several pages of personal barbs and insults about Putin, it is hard to see this as anything more than a self-licking stunt, of the type Dan Fried would support. The Europeans and Zelensky appear dug in for the long haul.
A senior Russian contact remarked to me recently that the Europeans spend a lot of time talking about the possibility of talks, but not the substance of what might be on the agenda. In truth, a vast amount of work will be needed in preparatory negotiations to map out the shape of a future peace settlement, requiring a clarity of focus that has hitherto been missing.
A durable peace for Ukraine will require several interlocking deals, possibly negotiated separately with different signatories. Talk of a single ‘peace deal’ for Ukraine is a lazy over-simplification. The latest E3 statement bundles up separate issues in the same basket as does the now dormant US brokered plan. A peace settlement for Ukraine will require, inter alia, the following.
A bilateral peace deal between Russia and Ukraine, brokered by the U.S. and others. The existing U.S.-brokered draft is the right place to start, as that includes the most contentious issue of territory, and in particular the future status of the remaining territory in Donetsk which Russia has not conquered. It would also need to cover sensitive topics such as the size of Ukraine’s army, Ukrainian children who were removed to Russia, and minority languages in Ukraine.
A clear plan and timeline for Ukraine to join the European Union. This can only be negotiated bilaterally by the EU and Ukraine, without U.S. or British involvement. It is arguably as difficult as a bilateral peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia.
Zelensky has said he wants to see Ukrainian accession by 2027, but this is not going to happen, and not only because the war may still be ongoing. The Europeans aren’t over eager about Ukraine joining because Ukraine is nowhere near ready, and Europe can’t afford it. Chancellor Merz has recently resurfaced the idea of “associate membership,” in which Ukraine gets no voting rights or money. Every rational observer should be able to judge that many Ukrainians will want clarity on the glidepath towards EU membership as a condition for ending the war.
An agreement between Russia and Europe, including the United Kingdom, on the future shape of their relationship. The third issue is equally as complex. Should Ukraine eventually join the EU, then it would join existing former Soviet and Warsaw Pact members (the Balts and Poland) who frame Russia as an existential threat. Relations between Europe and Russia are more shuttered today than they were during the Soviet era.
Europe needs cheap energy to stem the tide of self-imposed deindustrialization; Russia would like European investment again and a more open people-to-people relationship. There will need to be a settlement on how sanctions against Russia are eased during a post-war period. Ignoring an EU-Russia deal risks pressing the pause button on a future general war at a time when Europe is rapidly rearming,
An agreement within NATO. A peace settlement for Ukraine will only land when its future NATO aspiration is taken decisively off of the table. Anyone who still believes that Russia will give up on this clearest of redlines is dangerously misguided.
Ukraine needs cast iron security guarantees that should involve a hard commitment to boots on the ground should Russia renege on its commitments.This will require Russia to have confidence that NATO isn’t stoking the fire in the background to reignite tensions as a pretext for intervention. These are incredibly complex issues and will require U.S. leadership to shift the Europeans into line. The NATO-Russia Council could have provided a forum for discussion and deconfliction but was formally disbanded in December 2025. Perhaps a NATO-Ukraine-Russia Council might emerge, to take its place, reopening a vital avenue for military dialogue and deconfliction.
Amid signs that the Trump Administration is tiring of the Ukraine peace process, the time is ripe for a serious push to bring the disastrous war in Ukraine to a close. Rather than the Europeans and Americans tussling over who should be in charge of the negotiations, the truth is that every Western nation will have a role to play, together with Ukraine and Russia, to hammer out the various agreements needed for peace. That may require a grand summit similar in scale to the Helsinki Conference of 1975. On the back of the E3 Statement, however, I am not holding my breath.
Ian Proud is an individual much better qualified than a New Zealand resident watching from afar. Yet...
I am not sure that he has got it right in his analysis of the current war taking place in Europe. I question, for the sake of simplicity, just one of Ian's assumptions - that the countries of Western Europe have an interest in seeking a settlement of the war. What I see is the opposite of trying to end the war. I must admit, that I came to the conclusion, long ago. That I saw the arming of Ukraine by NATO countries, prior to the war, as part of a plan by NATO to expand the alliance in a bid to take on Russia. The purpose being to break Russia up, so that Corporations could resume their destruction of the "Soviet Union" as they did when Yeltsin ruled.
Whether you accept my analysis or not, I have no belief that the largest European countries have any interest in seeking a peace - a war in which many of them are covertly taking an active part.
Time will tell.
John Rothery 😎 (Tauranga)
My attempt at being diplomatic clearly failed miserably.
Let me be clear.
The reason that Western Europe has little interest in seeking an end to the war taking place on their continent is that rather than being spectators, it is their war. A war that they and the Americans fund and actively support. They have done so since before hostilities actually took place. The only difference is that their mililitaries are not taking an active part on the front lines. It is young and not so young Ukranians who are dying, rather than their paymasters in the West.
I accept that you do not come from the same standpoint.
But the idea that somehow Western Europeans might wish to end the war between Ukraine and Russia can only have validity if you also believe that they are not active participants, and have been all along.
However, I do think that it is in the interest of European Governments for the war to end. Their economies are in a poor state, and show little sign of recovery. On top of that the recent moves to militarisation by Germany and Britain, so that they can directly fight Russia themselves, have limited chances of success - primarily because they no longer have the industrial base to do so.
If Britain and Western Europe wish to make progress, it will not be via fake diplomatic efforts, to resolve a war that they are participants in. The first thing that any country, in my humble opinion, should do, is "Make a Plan". For themselves. What they want to achieve. Where they want to go. I admit that under the current "democratic" procedures it won't be easy. But without a plan, everyone is just flailing around in the dark, living from day to day. Could this be why China is so successful? They have plans, and are able to carry them out.
So.
Going back to the premise of European nations attempting to negotiate with Russia - I think that it is a non starter.
It isn't diplomacy that is missing, it is honesty.
John Rothery 😎 (Tauranga)