Washington, 18 August 2025. Volodymyr Zelensky was preparing to walk through the gates of the White House to meet Donald Trump, with key European leaders set to join the summit. But even before the meeting, the US president had already set the stakes in his own way, with a post on the social network he dedicates to his most prurient and truculent propaganda, Truth: ‘For the war to end, Kyiv must give up Crimea and agree never to join NATO‘. Not exactly the best prelude to negotiations.

According to the American envoy Steve Witkoff(whose loyalty to the United States we are not sure of, but whose loyalty to Putin we would put our hand on the fire, ed.), the Russian president has allegedly hypothesised ‘security guarantees‘ for Ukraine and even concessions on hypothetical exchanges of territory. Zelensky immediately replied that such guarantees should be ‘more solid than those that have failed in the past‘. Moscow, so far, has made no mention of this. On the ground, meanwhile, Russian bombs strike again, with indiscriminate attacks on civilians. “The Kremlin intends to humiliate every diplomatic effort ,” the Ukrainian president said shortly before entering the White House, ” and this is proof that reliable guarantees are needed.

Against this confusing background, we asked Nona Mikhelidze, political scientist, senior research fellow at the Istituto Affari Internazionali and one of the most authoritative voices in Italy on the post-Soviet space, to help us understand what has really happened in the last few hours and how we can decode the whole issue.‘So, ‘ Mikhelidze begins, ‘ what is the story since Trump became convinced that he could end the Russian war in Ukraine? He became fixated on the idea of a ceasefire, putting pressure on Ukraine but not on Russia. Kyiv initially refuses, then accepts, thinking: ‘the Russians will say no to the ceasefire anyway‘.”

The dynamic, the researcher notes, soon revealed itself for what it was: a game orchestrated by Moscow. “The Russians, meanwhile, entertained Trump with two bilateral meetings and more talks with the Ukrainians on an issue that was already on the table even without the Americans: the exchange of prisoners. All this, however, only to finally arrive at rejecting the ceasefire proposal.”

When Trump threatened new sanctions, there seemed to be a change of course. But even in this case Putin was able to buy time. “At that point Trump gets irritated and threatens Russia with new sanctions. The Russians then propose a summit between Trump and Putin and, in order to gain time, they put the issue of ‘security guarantees’ on the table, so as to keep him still – it is not known for how many months – and prevent him from really moving to tough measures against Moscow. Trump falls into the trap.”

As a result, the game has now shifted to the Europeans and the Ukrainians. “Now the ball is passed to the Ukrainians and the Europeans, who are forced to adapt to this new game. Zelensky reacts by saying: ‘OK, you want to discuss security guarantees? Let’s talk about it and set some terms’. Together with the Europeans, he prepares a proposal that Putin will not accept.‘ For Mikhelidze, it is all a script with one goal: to buy time and shift the responsibility to the Western camp. For the Kyiv government and the shrewd Europeans, “all this partisan play has only one purpose: to prevent Trump from blaming Zelensky and suspending the arms shipment. Thus we will see a constant back-and-forth of discussions on security guarantees, destined to remain a dead letter while the war continues.”

The European Self-Flagellation

Nona Mikhelidze’s statements only reinforce the diagnosis she had made a few days ago, in the aftermath of the Alaska summit on 15 August, when she warned: “Enough of the European self-flagellation.” It was not a failure on the part of the West, the scholar emphatically reiterated at the time, but a reflection of a deliberate choice on the part of the Kremlin: “The responsibility for the failure to reach an agreement lies solely with Putin. Europe must tell its citizens that there is no diplomatic solution to the war in Ukraine.” Those words today sound like an even stronger warning: while Moscow entertains Trump with promises of empty guarantees, the war continues and Europe risks lulling itself into the illusion that a diplomatic formula can stop the aggressor.

Why Putin cannot stop

Mikhelidze makes it clear: Putin cannot and will not stop, for at least four reasons. “Putin aims not only to conquer territories, but to subjugate Kyiv politically, installing a pro-Russian regime on the model of Lukashenko in Belarus.” As for negotiating terms, the researcher presses: “How could Zelensky order the evacuation of 300,000 citizens from Donetsk, handing over their homes to the Russian occupation and abandoning the fortifications built since 2014? That would be political and military suicide. Those defensive lines protect Dnipropetrovsk and Kharkiv: surrendering them would mean opening the door wide to new Russian offensives.” Thirdly, the military machine is not slowing down. “The conscription register in Russia is now more active than ever.” Finally, the economic reason: “Putin can no longer stop, because without the war economy the whole system would risk collapse.”

In the light of this picture, diplomatic rhetoric appears disconnected from reality: can one really speak of compromise while Moscow continues to arm and bomb?

The language of force

If diplomacy is impossible, only one language remains: that of force. Mikhelidze strongly denounces the western approach: an ‘escalation management’ that allowed Ukraine to resist, but not to win. “We have only supplied weapons in limited quantities and with droppers, without ever creating the conditions for a Ukrainian victory on the ground. A change of pace is needed: more weapons, of higher quality, in adequate quantity. This is not about sustaining an endless conflict, but about giving Kyiv a chance to reverse the course of the war.”

The same applies to sanctions. “If we are discussing the 19th package today, it means that something went wrong. Why was it only in the eighteenth that twenty Russian banks were excluded from SWIFT? Why didn’t we do it immediately, en bloc?” And again: “Complaints about sanctions not working are meaningless if they are applied in a bland, piecemeal fashion. We need a drastic, immediate approach with real monitoring.“

Telling the truth to citizens

The knot remains political. “So far we have used the Ukrainians as a shield. But if Kyiv falls, the Baltic countries could be next. Then the war would no longer be far away, but on EU and NATO soil.” Supporting Kyiv is not an act of generosity, but of European self-defence. Not helping it means exposing Vilnius, Riga and Tallinn to direct risk. Admittedly, it is a difficult message to explain to societies weary of inflation and sacrifice. But the alternative is worse: pretending that peace is within treaty reach, deluding citizens and preparing them for a far more traumatic awakening. “Either we support Kyiv effectively today, or we prepare to defend our cities tomorrow.”

Europe in front of the mirror and time for choices

Looking beyond the emergency, Mikhelidze emphasises that this war can become the founding moment of a common European defence: “Paradoxically, Trump and Putin are helping us get closer to a true common European defence. But in the short term it remains unattainable.” The obstacles remain enormous: treaties entrusting defence to individual states, strategic divergences between East and South, dependence on NATO, public opinion hostile to military spending. “With Orbán inside the Union, talking about common defence is almost an oxymoron.” Yet Europe can no longer put off the crucial question: does it want to remain an economic giant but a strategic dwarf, or finally build its own defence autonomy?

Mikhelidze’s words leave no loopholes. There is no shortcut of diplomacy. There is no Putin ready to repent. There is no Manzonian Providence to turn the Unnamed of the Kremlin into a sudden penitent. There are only choices. Europe must decide whether to continue to oscillate between regrets and grievances, or to take the necessary toughness.

So, while in Washington Trump dictates conditions to Zelensky that seem all too similar to Putin’s wishes, the real question for European leaders is this: do they want to be a power or a battleground?