Even before the meeting, the White House signaled its stance: Ukraine lacks leverage to dictate conditions. However, Zelensky has firmly rejected this assessment. For Ukrainians, ending the war is a desired outcome. Yet, after three years of intense fighting, previous strategies have not yielded a clear path to peace. While Western assistance has been vital, restrictions on weapon usage have resulted in an infantry-centric war of attrition, severely straining Ukrainian forces and hindering a decisive victory.

Russia, too, has struggled to achieve its objectives. Despite territorial gains through 2024 and early 2025, progress has been slow and costly, leaving limited options for considerably altering the situation. Concerns have arisen that U.S. policy might inadvertently aid Russia, echoing narratives that distort the war’s realities. This has sparked worries in Kyiv, Washington, and other capitals that U.S. policy could inadvertently offer a lifeline to the struggling aggressor in this war.

The U.S. possesses the capacity to exert notable pressure on the Kremlin, potentially leading to reasonable armistice terms. Ukraine has consistently expressed interest in peace, but only under acceptable conditions. Recently, Ukraine proposed a staged cease-fire, beginning with an end to air and maritime hostilities. However, a cease-fire imposed on Ukraine at any cost, as hinted at during the Oval Office confrontation, risks becoming a U.S.-russian agreement that Ukraine is expected to simply accept.

Such an approach reflects a flawed understanding of the war’s current power dynamics,making it strategically unsound. It raises the risk of failing to secure a lasting resolution and setting the stage for continued conflict. Demanding unconditional acceptance of terms dictated by Moscow would effectively mean capitulation for Ukraine. Kyiv would face a choice: surrender or continue fighting without its key ally. However, the Ukrainian leadership, backed by the Ukrainian people, has long rejected surrender, a commitment reinforced by the experiences in occupied territories where everywhere Russia has prevailed, terror, lawlessness, and destruction have followed.

Ukraine would then be forced to prepare for war without U.S. support. Regardless, a withdrawal of that support might be the outcome of either path presented to Zelensky at the White House: accepting an effectively unconditional cease-fire without security guarantees, or losing U.S. military assistance promptly.

Even with a pause in U.S. military aid, Ukraine’s war effort will not collapse immediately, provided strong European support continues. This support seems even more likely after a recent gathering of European leaders in London. While Putin might achieve tactical gains, he will likely fall short of his maximalist objectives. A U.S. government aligning with Russia to undermine Ukraine’s fight would be a truly shocking development—one that would shatter trust in the United States and irreparably fracture the western alliance. Ukrainians, understanding the war’s cost, have no choice but to fight for their country’s survival.

Russia’s underachievement

By most measures, Russia has underachieved in three years of war. In 2022, after realizing a swift conquest was unachievable, Putin scaled back objectives to occupying the Donbas region, maintaining the land bridge to Crimea, destroying Ukrainian infrastructure, and enforcing a Black Sea blockade. Even these objectives remain largely unmet. Ukrainian naval forces reopened the Black Sea, and despite relentless attacks, Ukraine still has power and its people remain resilient. Russia has also failed to fully claim the Donbas.

Russia has suffered significant losses, including 900,000 personnel and 100

ukraine’s Precarious position: A Deep Dive into the US Policy Shift and Russo-Ukrainian Conflict

Is the US inadvertently fueling the flames of the Ukraine-Russia conflict, perhaps jeopardizing Ukraine’s very survival?

Interviewer: Dr. Anya Petrova, a renowned geopolitical strategist specializing in Eastern European affairs, welcome to world-today-news.com. Your expertise on the ongoing Ukraine conflict is invaluable. Let’s start with the elephant in the room: the shifting US policy towards Ukraine and its potential repercussions. How important is this shift, and what are its implications for Ukraine’s future stability?

Dr. Petrova: The shift in US policy towards Ukraine represents a crucial turning point in the conflict. The implications for Ukraine’s future are profound, potentially jeopardizing years of progress and raising serious questions about long-term security. A change in approach risks undermining Ukraine’s ability to negotiate from a position of strength and could inadvertently embolden Russia, which may misinterpret decreased US involvement as a sign of weakening Western resolve.

Interviewer: The article highlights a tense meeting between President Zelensky, President Trump, and vice President vance, revealing stark disagreements on the conflict’s resolution. Could you elaborate on the differing viewpoints and the strategic implications of these disagreements?

Dr. Petrova: The reported disagreements emphasize a profound divergence in strategic thinking. President Zelensky likely pressed for continued robust US support, including military aid and clear security guarantees against future Russian aggression.Conversely, President Trump and Vice President Vance, potentially reflecting a more isolationist or transactional approach, might advocate for a negotiated settlement even if it entails significant concessions from Ukraine. This conflict of interests highlights a critical question: Can a lasting peace be achieved without addressing the root causes of the conflict and securing Ukraine’s long-term security? The answer, in my opinion, is a resounding no. A hasty, unequally negotiated peace agreement risks merely postponing the problem and possibly even encouraging further Russian aggression in the future.

Interviewer: The article discusses the possibility of a cease-fire imposed on Ukraine,even against its will. What are the potential dangers of such an approach?

Dr. Petrova: Forcing a cease-fire on Ukraine without securing acceptable conditions would be disastrous. This approach fails to acknowledge the power imbalance between Russia and Ukraine and risks rewarding Russia’s aggression. It would likely lead to:

A violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty: A dictated peace would disregard Ukraine’s right to self-determination and its legitimate desire for a secure future free from Russian threats.

A continuation of the conflict: A forced cease-fire will not address the underlying issues and is unlikely to bring about a permanent peace. It will merely provide Russia with a window to consolidate its gains, rearm, and launch another wave of aggression.

Erosion of trust among allies: Pressuring Ukraine to accept unfavorable terms could severely damage the credibility and trust among Western allies, sending a risky message about the West’s commitment to defending democracy.

Increased military aid: The supply of advanced weaponry systems, training programs, and logistical support remain essential.

Strengthened sanctions: Targeted and consistently enforced sanctions exert significant economic pressure on Russia.

Financial and humanitarian assistance: Continued and stable financial support, together with robust humanitarian aid, directly impact Ukraine’s resilience and help people in the affected region.

* Long-term security guarantees: The West should work together to provide Ukraine with clear and credible security guarantees, ensuring their security well beyond the current conflict. This is crucial for addressing the profound uncertainty regarding Ukraine’s future security.

Interviewer: Dr. Petrova, thank you for these invaluable insights. Your analysis shines light on the complex dynamics of the Ukraine-Russia conflict and underscores the high stakes involved in the West’s strategic response.

Call to Action: What are your thoughts on the future of the conflict? Share your opinions in the comments below or on social media using #UkraineConflict #USPolicy #Geopolitics.