With Washington’s recent shift toward so-called “pragmatic” diplomacy, the very foundations of Western unity on Ukraine have once again been put to the test. Principles once considered non-negotiable—that a sovereign nation’s borders are inviolable and that aggression must not be rewarded—are now being treated as bargaining chips in the Oval Office.
Recent reports that US President Donald Trump’s administration is actively pressing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to accept a "land-for-peace" deal are a shocking reversal of US policy. The proposal, which would see Ukraine cede the Donbas region in exchange for a cessation of hostilities, was reportedly pushed on a stunned Ukrainian delegation just last week.
This moment represents more than a diplomatic stumble; it is a grave danger to the established international order. Yet, it is not the end of the story. The White House's short-sighted gamble on a false peace has had an unintended, but crucial, consequence: it has galvanized an even stronger bloc of European nations. From the Baltics to the United Kingdom, these allies are now forming a critical firewall against appeasement.
As President Trump prepares to meet Vladimir Putin in Budapest, this "coalition of the willing" now holds the key to navigating the crisis and defending international law. Its resolve will determine whether the result is a just peace—or a forced capitulation.
America's dangerous gamble on a false peace
The White House’s new proposal is not "pragmatism," as some of its proponents might claim. It is a profound misreading of history, strategy, and the very nature of the adversary.
The plan, as detailed in a report by The Guardian, would involve Russia retaining the Donbas, a region it has fought to control for over a decade. This is not a minor concession. To ask for the Donbas is to ask Ukraine to surrender its eastern fortress. This is the industrial heartland, but more importantly, it is a vast, 700-kilometer front line that has been hardened by years of trench warfare, bunkers, and fortifications. Ceding this territory would not be a step toward peace; it would be a strategic unraveling of Ukraine’s entire defensive posture, leaving the rest of the country exposed and vulnerable.
Transactionalism and the illusion of a "win"
This policy shift appears born from a dangerous transactionalism, a desire to secure a quick diplomatic "win" similar to the recently brokered ceasefire in Gaza. It treats Ukrainian land as a simple commodity to be traded. This approach is tragically flawed because it operates on the fantasy that Vladimir Putin is a good-faith actor who can be satisfied. He is not. His goals, laid bare in countless speeches and actions, are not limited to a few eastern provinces. As historical analysis of Russia's colonial ambitions shows, the objective has long been the subjugation of the Ukrainian state and the denial of its very identity.
This diplomatic pressure campaign is happening even as Ukraine continues to inflict significant losses on the aggressor. In recent days, Ukrainian drone strikes have hit strategic targets deep inside Russia, including the Orenburg gas processing plant—the largest such facility in the world—demonstrating Kyiv’s resolve and growing battlefield reach. To withdraw support now would be to turn a hard-won stalemate into a self-inflicted defeat.
European unity in the face of US wavering
The most important consequence of Washington’s wavering has been to harden the resolve of those who truly understand what is at stake. While the US administration falters, a bloc of European nations has stepped forward to hold the line, forming a firewall of conviction.
This is not a fringe group. It is a critical mass of allies led by the United Kingdom, Poland, the Nordic nations, and the Baltic states. These countries, many of whom share a border or a painful history with Russian imperialism, know that this is not an abstract debate.
The United Kingdom, in its UK-Ukraine 100 Year Partnership Declaration, committed itself to promoting a "just and lasting peace for Ukraine, based on full respect for principles of the UN Charter and international law." This is the language of full sovereignty, not forced concessions.
More recently, in response to these worrying diplomatic shifts, the Nordic-Baltic Eight (NB8) nations released a joint statement that should be read in every Western capital. Their message was unequivocal: a path to peace "cannot be charted without Ukraine's voice." In a follow-up statement, they doubled down, insisting on the core principle of "No decisions on Ukraine without Ukraine."
Kyiv's principled stand
This coalition of conviction understands what the White House seemingly does not: that President Zelenskyy’s immovable stance is not an obstacle to peace, but the very moral and strategic anchor the alliance needs. When President Zelenskyy declared in August that "Ukrainians will not gift their land to the occupier," he was not being stubborn. He was defending the right of all nations to exist, free from the threat of dismemberment by a predatory neighbor. This bloc, and a defiant Kyiv, are now the true center of Western resolve.
This European resolve has remained firm in the face of the latest US diplomatic shifts. Following President Zelenskyy's meeting in Washington, European Council President Antonio Costa convened a call with European leaders, reaffirming that their “shared goal remains a just and lasting peace for Ukraine” and that military, financial, and diplomatic support are essential to achieving it.
The EU’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, voiced disapproval of the choice of Hungary for the upcoming summit, stating it was “not nice” that Putin might travel to an EU member state for the talks. Echoing this sentiment, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot stated that a visit from Putin to the EU “only makes sense if it leads to an immediate and unconditional ceasefire.”
Reinforcing this unified stance, on 19 October President Zelenskyy reiterated his position in his video address to Ukrainians saying, “We will grant the aggressor no gifts and forget nothing,” stressing that Kyiv continues to strengthen its defense and energy cooperation with international partners.
False choice of a quick exit
We must urgently challenge the narrative that this US proposal is "pragmatic."
The architects of this deal will argue that a long war is too costly, that continued support risks escalation, and that a "realistic" settlement is needed to end the bloodshed. This is a tired argument, and it is a false choice.
True pragmatism is not about finding the quickest exit. True pragmatism is recognizing that ceding territory to an autocrat who has proven his complete untrustworthiness is never a final settlement. It is merely a pause. It is a down payment on a future, larger, and more costly war.
Realists and the "whiff of Munich"
The realists in this conflict are not the comfortable diplomats in Washington. The realists are the leaders in Warsaw, Vilnius, Riga, Tallinn, and Helsinki. Through the bitter and bloody experience of the 20th century, they know that security on the European continent can only be guaranteed through strength, not accommodation.
The "whiff of Munich" is a strong and often overused historical analogy, but here it is painfully appropriate. To pressure Ukraine to surrender the Donbas in 2025 is functionally identical to pressuring Czechoslovakia to surrender the Sudetenland in 1938. A democracy is being asked to sacrifice its strategic defenses on the altar of a tyrant’s promise of peace. We know how that story ends. It does not end in peace. It ends in a wider, more catastrophic war, fought on the aggressor's terms.
Budapest test and Alaska precedent
The upcoming summit in Budapest between President Trump and Vladimir Putin is the next diplomatic battlefield. The stakes could not be higher.
We have seen this play before. The summit in Alaska on 15 August 2025 was billed as a potential breakthrough but ended as a US diplomacy effort to legitimize Putin’s war policy and pressured Ukraine to surrender territory. That meeting, however, ultimately failed to impose a deal precisely because the coalition of allies stood firm and the chasm between Russia’s demands and Ukraine’s rights was too vast to be bridged.
The Budapest summit is a dangerous second attempt. The "coalition of the willing" now faces its most critical test. They must do what they did after the Alaska meeting: stand united, speak with one clear and thunderous voice, and make it politically impossible for an unjust peace to be imposed on Kyiv. They must make it clear to Washington that any deal that rewards Putin will be rejected, that they will continue to arm and support Ukraine, and that the security of Europe is not for sale.
The path out of this crisis does not lie in the wavering hands of a US administration seeking a quick headline. It lies in the steadfast, iron resolve of Ukraine and its most committed partners. They have the moral clarity, the historical experience, and the collective will to ensure that this century is not defined by appeasement, but by the enduring principle that sovereignty cannot, and will not, be negotiated at the end of a gun.
