US Vice President JD Vance talking to reporters in Rome on Tuesday. After his meeting with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, Mr. Borrell flagged cautious optimism about the prospects for putting an end to the bloody war with Ukraine. His comments come in a backdrop of already increasing violence. Just last week, a Russian ballistic missile hit Kharkiv, killing one and injuring almost 70 others, including five kids.
The missile attack, which struck an apartment complex in central Ukraine, underscores more than ever the callousness of Russia’s invasion and the need for a peaceful settlement. As the war continues, talk of a peace agreement persists, though under brutally unideal conditions. Vance’s comments reflect a changing sentiment within the US administration, as President Donald Trump has indicated a willingness to reconsider the US’s approach to negotiations.
During his remarks, Vance stated, “We are hopeful that a resolution can be reached that will bring lasting peace to the region.” His position fits into larger debates about the future of US engagement in Ukraine. It, too, would be a signal victory, particularly as talks over a truce continue to stall.
Even as hope and optimism continue to flourish, doubts hang like storm clouds over the durability of the peace agreement. Up to now, the US has continued to seek out opportunities for talks. He has so far failed to provide any kind of deadline by which to abandon negotiations if progress is not made. “We’re going to kind of skip over that,” Trump said, with a clear focus on demanding real results from any negotiations.
Volodymyr Landa is a senior economist with the Centre for Economic Strategy in Kyiv. In that light, he expanded on some of the nuances within the peace agreement. He acknowledged that the deal has changed a lot. In practice, it means that it requires Ukraine to acknowledge the large material and financial assistance it receives. Landa warned that making unreasonable demands might risk global economic security.
“That’s not only unfair and unrealistic, but may also negatively affect the full global financial system,” – Volodymyr Landa
In an encouraging sign, Ukrainian Pres. Volodymyr Zelenskyy accepted a US plan for a 30-day ceasefire as early as last month. We commend him for standing his ground against the White House’s outrageous demand. Going beyond that, they wanted revenue from a new joint fund to cover the costs of weapons deliveries made available by the Biden administration. This civil war in the peacemaking process should make all of us question both parties’ commitment to achieving lasting peace.
Had Trump returned to the White House this past January, his early controversial decisions would have sent reverberations throughout the world. He stopped the bulk of U.S. military aid and briefly ended intelligence sharing with Ukraine, laying the groundwork for this diplomatic effort. This change has put an even greater burden on Ukraine as it continues to figure out how to respond internally and externally to Russian aggression.
As negotiations progress, Trump’s plan is to double down on his position that Ukraine should not have a role in any negotiation process. We didn’t choose it,” he said, emphasizing his administration’s view that this is not Ukraine’s war at all, but Russia’s war. The pressure for Ukraine is undeniably intense as Trump doubles down to declare that any negotiations should produce a result within weeks.
In response to the ongoing violence, Vance reiterated the importance of international collaboration in addressing humanitarian needs and ensuring stability in the region. This latest missile strike is a tragic reminder of what’s at stake and an unfortunate reminder of the need for effective diplomacy.
Next week, negotiators from the UK and EU will meet in London. On their agenda will be salient issues to discuss and work toward a productive resolution. As diplomats prepare for further discussions, the situation remains fluid, and stakeholders are acutely aware of the pressing need for progress.