It has to be a tribute to Volodymyr Zelensky’s resilience, as well as an acknowledgement of Donald Trump’s still-pivotal role as the would-be peacemaker, that he is prepared to risk another encounter at the White House.
That meeting, six months ago, has gone down in the annals as one of the most disgraceful episodes in modern-day diplomacy, with a national leader humiliated in front of the cameras in a grilling that the US president said afterwards would make good television. Lessons have clearly been drawn from that dire encounter, not just by President Zelensky himself, and maybe President Trump, who mended fences at an informal tete-a-tete at the Vatican, but also by the Ukrainian’s many European supporters.
Joining Mr Zelensky in Washington will be the heads of the EU and Nato, and a clutch of European leaders, including Sir Keir Starmer. That all these highly placed individuals are prepared to meet, as they did in various configurations on Sunday, and travel at such short notice to Washington at the height of Europe’s holiday season, shows how high the stakes are, as seen not just by Ukraine, but by Europe. And they are certainly a great deal higher than they were in February, given both the situation on the battlefield and what would appear to be the new level of understanding between Mr Trump and Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, following their summit in Alaska.
Whatever format is applied to the meeting, or surely meetings, in Washington, there are lessons that it must be hoped Mr Zelensky has taken to heart, should he find himself again one-to-one with Trump in the Oval Office. They include using a translator – whether or not he thinks he needs one – and ignoring media questions before any talks have taken place. What he chooses to wear, on the other hand, should be for him to decide, not for the White House to dictate.
In the end, though, the presence of so many high-level Europeans may be the best guarantee that Mr Zelensky is not treated as a lone leader of a peripheral state who can easily be imposed upon. And there are already intimations of a little more transatlantic flexibility on two key points.
After Alaska, Mr Trump appeared to follow Putin’s script for an actual end to the war, rather than an immediate ceasefire. The Europeans now appear to have followed, with the ceasefire demand now replaced by the longer-term, if more complex, aim of ending the war. It would also appear that security guarantees – a consistent requirement of Ukraine and slightly less consistent on the part of the Europeans – may be back on the agenda, although vague as to what form they might take and whether the US would underwrite them. With Nato membership for Ukraine one of Russia’s reddest of red lines, this could help square that circle.
The choreography in Washington alone will itself challenge complaints that the US and Russia were intent on cobbling together an agreement over the heads of Ukraine and Europe. This does not mean that the visitors should not be wary that Washington may listen and not hear. The Europeans must do their utmost not to make cracks show, and stick to what appears to be their simple and limited script. In particular, that means Ukraine’s full participation in any peace process. There must also be no dilution of their stance on what the Trump White House is calling “land swaps” and might more accurately be called territorial concessions.
The European position appears to be that no borders may be changed by force, although the last word must rest with Ukraine, which is quite right. Mr Zelensky has at times hinted at a readiness at least to broach such a possibility, while at others – including at Sunday’s joint press conference with Ursula von der Leyen in Brussels – insisting that sacrificing land would be out of the question as it would contravene Ukraine’s constitution.
In the end, though, the benefits for Ukraine of ending the war may have to be set against any territorial losses. Domestically, this will be one of Mr Zelensky’s toughest calls. Internationally, there are diplomatic formulas that can cope with continuing territorial ambiguities. The emotive issue of Ukraine’s abducted children must also be factored into any discussions. If it is true that the US first lady, Melania Trump, has taken up their cause, then their return may not be as remote a prospect as once seemed.
Above all, the principle of “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine” is not just a slogan; it is an entirely practical requirement. There can be no peace that does not reflect the assent of Ukraine, as it will simply not endure. The torrent of recent developments has opened the question of whether, for all Moscow’s official intransigence, there is enough now in play, as between the US, Russia and Ukraine, for some modest progress towards peace. A very cautious “Yes” may be the best answer that can be hoped for out of Washington on Monday.
