President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio have exchanged statements regarding the continuation of negotiations between Russia, Ukraine, and the United States. The Ukrainian president claims that American participants in the talks are pressuring their Ukrainian counterparts, demanding concessions of the unoccupied part of Donbas in exchange for U.S. security guarantees after the end of hostilities. Rubio, in turn, called these claims untrue and emphasized that Washington has not imposed any decisions on Ukraine, but has only stressed that Kyiv must determine its own response to Russian conditions. At the same time, according to him, U.S. security guarantees could only come into force after the cessation of hostilities between Russian and Ukrainian forces. Zelenskyy responded that this is only the tip of the iceberg and that assessments largely depend on interpretation, but insisted that discussions about conceding Donbas did indeed take place in the United States.
All of this could be described as a genuine diplomatic scandal—if the sides were not dealing with entirely abstract concepts. In reality, there are currently no полноценные Ukrainian-American-Russian negotiations. Those that have taken place resemble more a stalling tactic necessary for Vladimir Putin to continue the war against Ukraine while simultaneously keeping the United States from tightening sanctions against Moscow. This Russian “performance” for a single audience—Donald Trump—ends as soon as Putin realizes he can communicate directly with him without any negotiations and that no new sanctions will follow. At present, this is a favorable moment for the Russian president, as the American leader needs Russian oil to maintain some balance in a world facing energy instability.
There is also no clear understanding of what U.S. security guarantees actually mean. Under Trump, the United States firmly opposes Ukraine’s accession to NATO, and even during the presidency of Joe Biden, there was little enthusiasm in Washington for such a step. The reason is obvious: the United States seeks to avoid a direct conflict with Russia. Such a conflict would be inevitable if Ukraine were to join NATO and Russia attacked again. But if the U.S. categorically excludes the possibility of war with Russia due to fears of nuclear escalation, what real meaning can any guarantees have? Especially today, when even U.S. allies in the Persian Gulf—where American bases and fleets are actually stationed—have felt their own vulnerability while witnessing attacks on U.S. military facilities. In a world of a new kind of war, American guarantees appear to be a phantom. Yet neither Rubio nor Zelenskyy seems ready to admit this.
The condition of ending the war through the withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from Donbas appears equally illusory. Such a move would imply acknowledging that Putin has waged war for four years, sacrificing hundreds of thousands of lives and enormous resources merely to gain control over cities like Kramatorsk and Sloviansk. In reality, the demand for Ukrainian withdrawal is only part of a broader strategy aimed at absorbing all of Ukraine. The withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from any city would not end the war—it would only prolong it.
Thus, we are witnessing an entirely new form of diplomatic scandal—one that reflects the realities of the modern world. The parties are not arguing over concrete political steps, but over formulations that exist only in their own perceptions. The Americans have their illusions: that the war can be ended through Ukrainian concessions, followed by the restoration of mutually beneficial economic relations with Russia. Ukrainians have theirs: that the United States will provide guarantees strong enough to prevent future aggression. Neither aligns with reality. However, this does not mean there is no way out. There is one.
It lies primarily in undermining Russia’s economic potential and striking its military-industrial complex. If Russia lacks the resources to wage war, the war itself will cease. Yes, this would make mutually beneficial economic cooperation impossible. But it would also create a chance to prepare for the next war—which could begin again once Russia rebuilds its economic strength and is ready for another leap.
Author: Vitaly Portnikov
