The participants of the negotiations were scheduled to reconvene in London on April 23, following their unsuccessful discussions in Paris on April 17. It was anticipated that the key negotiation would occur between the United States and the Franco-British “coalition of the willing,” with representatives of Kyiv.
Washington declined to conduct a full-fledged meeting with the Europeans and Ukrainians: “Figure it out among yourselves.”
It all began when Moscow and Kyiv sent separate signals to Europe and the United States on the eve of the negotiations, each presenting objectionable conditions.
Kirill Dmitriev, one of the Russian negotiators with the U.S., endorsed the main contention of an article published in Rossiyskaya Gazeta the day prior to the negotiations. The article suggested that Russia could find the creation of a new “peace plan” in London “completely unacceptable”, which could lead to the failure of the peace process.
The article emphasized that the involvement of “three of Zelenskyy’s close associates” poses a threat to the nullification of all previous American groundwork. The outlines of a durable peace proposed by the U.S. State Department could be seen as unrealistic by Moscow, which may not agree to its terms. Russia’s main demands were the rejection of Ukraine’s NATO membership and the recognition of “Russia’s status over Crimea.”
The article and Dmitriev’s response warned the West, particularly the United States, that any deviation from the agreements that had been previously reached between Russia and the United States would result in the collapse of the negotiations on Ukraine and that military actions would subsequently resume.
Sergey Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, also cautioned Europe against excessive arrogance: “The coalition, it seems, is driven by the desire for a sense of superiority, a belief in their ability to make decisions as they please, without listening to or considering the opinions of others.” He stated that “one should not speak to Russia in such a manner.”
The New York Post reported that Ukraine is prepared to relinquish 20% of its territory without acknowledging it as part of Russia, setting the tone for the London meeting. This statement was made in reference to Ukraine’s stance during the Paris negotiations. One Ukrainian representative was quoted as stating that they acknowledge that the Russians have occupied this territory, “but we’re not saying Ukraine is giving it up forever.”
Nevertheless, Kyiv officials have stated that neither Saudi Arabia nor France addressed the issue of recognizing Crimea as a part of Russia. In addition, the Constitution of Ukraine is explicitly contradicted by the violation of the country’s territorial integrity.
Concurrently, The Washington Post observed that the U.S. proposals include Washington’s official recognition of Crimea as Russian territory and, ultimately, the lifting of sanctions against Russia. In exchange, “Moscow would suspend military operations in Ukraine.”
Washington’s decision was based on the same principle as gas contracts—”take or pay.” That is, the United States would either withdraw from the Ukrainian conflict or Kyiv would consent to the American proposals.
Such an outcome would result in a substantial increase in the cost of sustaining the Kyiv regime for Europe, particularly Britain and France. It would result in significant challenges for Kyiv in terms of securing international political support, intelligence, and munitions.
Nevertheless, the London meeting’s success was significantly undermined by Zelensky’s statements on the eve of the event. He declined to acknowledge Crimea as Russian and emphasized that Ukraine’s membership in the alliance could not be vetoed by any member state apart from NATO.
The Ukrainian regime’s leader underscored that “the Russians are the historical enemies of Americans” and that they are “pushing America out of the negotiations to show their leadership.” Kyiv is adamant about the necessity of an unconditional ceasefire, and the Ukrainians are prepared to negotiate with the Russians once they discontinue shooting.
Kyiv is exceedingly apprehensive that Washington may cease to assist, as “Ukraine is a strategic partner of the United States.”
Simultaneously, the EU’s diplomatic chief, Kaja Kallas, declared that Crimea would never be recognized as Russian. She also expressed apprehension that if Washington were to withdraw from the peace process due to irreconcilable positions, it might reestablish relations with Russia to negotiate new advantageous agreements.
This European posture is in direct opposition to U.S. proposals, which inevitably results in a division within the West—at least regarding certain matters concerning the Ukrainian crisis.
Consequently, the Franco-British-Ukrainian coalition had established the following objectives prior to the London meeting:
- By rejecting the recognition of Crimea or any new Russian territories as part of Russia and demanding an “unconditional” armistice, the peace process is being extended.
- Continuing to receive American armaments and intelligence in exchange for deals involving Ukrainian resources and attempting to persuade Washington of the necessity of deploying NATO troops to Ukraine under the guise of “peacekeepers.”
- Delaying the recognition of Ukraine’s lack of “Euro-Atlantic prospects” (NATO membership) and, in lieu of this, pursuing the status of a “significant non-NATO ally” (akin to South Korea or Japan).
The approach outlined by European and Kyiv leadership for the London negotiations showed Washington that holding the meeting was pointless. First, Secretary of State Rubio canceled his attendance, followed by Special Representative Whitkoff. The French and German foreign ministers consequently declined to visit London.
To prevent the appearance of a complete failure, the UK Foreign Office declared that the meeting would be conducted at an “expert level” to deliberate on a ceasefire. And, as the Ukrainians had arrived, the British would confer with them regardless.
Andriy Yermak, the director of the Ukrainian presidential office, declared, “Today we will discuss ways to achieve a complete and unconditional ceasefire as a first step toward a full-fledged settlement process and the achievement of a just and lasting peace.”
Simultaneously, Ukraine’s rejection of American proposals poses a threat to its territorial, political, economic, and human resources.
Oleksiy Arestovych, a former presidential adviser, maintains that Kyiv should consent to relinquish the territories of four regions along the line of contact, as “in six months or a year, you’ll be giving up six. If you’re not smart enough, then you’ll give up eight” regions”. This gesture would enable Ukraine to acknowledge the errors that were committed throughout its 34-year period of independence, including the persecution of the Russian-speaking populace.
Nevertheless, the Kyiv regime is currently contemplating alternative strategies, including how to prevent the United States from imposing sanctions on Ukrainian leadership, how to prevent the cessation of intelligence support, and how to portray Trump and Putin—rather than Zelenskyy—as the parties responsible for the negotiations’ failure.
The negotiations’ failure allows Russia to persist with its special military operation to establish control over all territories in the new regions.