A planned high-level meeting in London aimed at coordinating Western positions on ending the war in Ukraine has been effectively cancelled just hours before its scheduled start, following a decision by senior United States officials not to attend.
The event, intended as a continuation of earlier discussions held in Paris, was to include national security advisers and foreign ministers from the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Ukraine. However, once it became clear that both US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Special Presidential Envoy Steve Witkoff would not participate, the format lost its multilateral character. The only American official present was to be Keith Kellogg, serving as President Donald Trump’s special representative.
In response, officials from France, Germany, the United Kingdom and Ukraine questioned the value of proceeding under these circumstances. While Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andriy Sybiha remained in London, any bilateral engagements—such as a likely meeting with UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy—were no longer considered part of a broader multilateral framework.
The London meeting had been planned as a second round following initial talks in Paris, where participants reportedly explored avenues for a joint position on the Russia–Ukraine conflict. However, it appears that the US delegation had not entered those talks with the intention of forming a joint approach, but rather with the expectation that European states and Ukraine would align with a pre-determined US position shaped by the Trump administration.
Following the Paris discussions, Secretary of State Rubio reportedly warned that the United States would withdraw from negotiations altogether should no quick agreement be reached between Russia and Ukraine. This posture was interpreted in several capitals as a form of diplomatic coercion rather than genuine mediation.
Reports suggest that proposals circulating ahead of the London round included controversial elements—among them, de facto recognition of Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea and the potential transfer of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant to US oversight. These points appeared in various media as part of a so-called peace plan allegedly backed by the White House.
For European diplomats, such suggestions called into question the Trump administration’s overall objectives. One core concern has been the apparent US disinterest in committing to any long-term security guarantees for Ukraine, despite continued pressure on Kyiv to accept far-reaching concessions.
Observers noted that elements of the proposed plan seemed unworkable from both Ukrainian and Russian perspectives. For Moscow, agreeing to US control over a nuclear facility on territory it claims as its own—under Russian constitutional law—would be viewed as a significant defeat. For Ukraine and its European partners, recognition of the Crimean annexation would undermine the post-1945 international legal framework.
Further doubts were raised by the lack of coherence across the US proposals, with some reports indicating differing inputs from various American agencies. It remains unclear to what extent the Trump administration has a unified policy, or whether these suggestions reflect tactical experimentation.
The failure to convene the London meeting reflects a deeper split within the Western alliance. While Kyiv and most European capitals have sought a coordinated and durable resolution to the war—based on sovereignty, territorial integrity and binding security commitments—the Trump administration appears to favour a rapid, transactional approach that prioritises public optics over substantive outcomes.
President Trump had previously claimed that he could end the conflict within “24 or 48 hours”, later calling the remark a joke. Nonetheless, the assertion has become a recurring theme in his rhetoric. The absence of senior US figures in London suggests the administration may now be shifting its strategy—from shaping a peace process, to disengaging from it while placing the onus for any failure on Ukraine and its European allies.
This approach risks isolating Washington from its traditional partners. It also raises questions about whether the US position is being driven by realistic diplomatic objectives or by domestic political considerations as President Trump marks his 100th day in office.
In practical terms, the breakdown of the London meeting may delay any coordinated Western initiative on Ukraine. It also signals the increasing difficulty of reconciling diverging views within the transatlantic alliance on how to handle both the Kremlin and Kyiv.
In the absence of an agreed framework, unilateral actions or fragmented proposals may become more common, with potential consequences for European security and the credibility of Western diplomacy.
Read also:
Trump’s Ukraine Plan: Crimea to Russia, NATO Off the Table for Kyiv
