Ukraine peace talks: A crossroads in history

ByFreddie Reidy

In 2008, then U.S. President George W. Bush had a pair of shoes thrown at him by an Iraqi journalist during a press conference. The incident quickly became infamous, not for the act alone but also for the president's quick reaction in ducking just in time.

Friday's photo session in the Oval Office featuring U.S. President Donald Trump and his Vice President J.D. Vance, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy probably saw everything other than shoes hurled and seemingly no timely ducking to avoid the onslaught.

Then on Sunday, European leaders met in London to coordinate Europe's position on supporting Ukraine, the next steps towards a lasting and workable peace, and how to overcome the schism between Ukraine and the Trump administration.

For now, relations between Kyiv and Washington are in the deep freeze, awaiting a thaw of some considerable magnitude. However, with the right positioning, relations with Trump could be quickly mended. Zelenskyy has told the BBC that "Ukraine remains ready to sign a minerals deal," which is key to obtaining U.S. support.

In London, all diplomatic strings were pulled in carefully orchestrated movements including bilateral talks between UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Zelenskyy ahead of the European conference. The Ukraine president then met with Britain's King Charles III – as a little royal patronage seems to curry favor with Trump.

It is telling that a fledgling peace plan agreed to by Ukraine seems to be handled with European leaders as interlocutors with Washington, rather than directly by Zelenskyy's team.

With the European leaders, led by France and the UK, working to draft a peace deal for U.S. approval, it is hoped that more established diplomatic channels can be employed to give Ukraine confidence that its position is being recognized. The key issue for Ukraine in the calamitous Oval Office meeting was frustration over what it regards as misrepresentation of the facts by the Trump administration, which it considers a barrier to talks and reconciliation.

Also on the table was an Anglo-Franco truce for the air and sea arenas as a prelude to more meaningful bilateral talks.

One key outcome of the talks at London's Lancaster House was the notion of a "coalition of the willing," a grouping of nations willing to engage in peacekeeping. However, some nations have been reluctant to join this effort so far, notably Germany and Poland. But the openness of Türkiye, NATO's second largest military power and a nation with open diplomatic channels with Russia, could be decisive.

European countries are attempting to thread the eye of the needle, navigating a pathway to a secure Europe, lasting peace and preserving relations with the United States. Starmer was eager to echo the spirit of Trump's remarks made during their meeting on February 27, emphasizing the urgency to achieve peace and highlighting Europe's responsibility to take the lead in this effort. "This is not a moment for more talk. This is a time to lead, to act and step up," the UK prime minister said.

In Washington, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told CBS News that "it is impossible to have a mineral deal without a peace deal." This is because most of the rare earths resources in question are in an active war zone. Bessent thinks that Zelenskyy is aiming to change the sequence by clinching a security guarantee first.

But it is clear that Ukraine doesn't intend to sign any agreement without such a guarantee, while the U.S. sees its financial investment in the deal itself as a form of security assurance.

While unity between Kyiv and Washington remains elusive, Zelenskyy was keen to state that European unity was "at an exceptionally high level, which has not been seen for a long time." Whether intentional or not, Trump has undoubtedly sharpened the continent's focus, resulting in commitments for increased defense spending and a more active European role in regional affairs.

What will be of interest in the coming days is America's willingness to balance conflict resolution and enhanced European leadership with maintaining American influence. Will the pursuit of peace in Ukraine be independent of a U.S.-brokered plan?

Another crucial question is the future role of NATO in European defense. Billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk, who now heads Trump's Department of Government Efficiency, has called for the U.S. to withdraw from both NATO and the United Nations.

Given that many weapons systems in the NATO require U.S. authorization, it remains uncertain whether the White House would permit the use of these military assets if it sees its influence waning. And if not, what kind of security guarantees can Europe realistically provide on its own? As Starmer says, we are truly "at a crossroads in history."

Freddie Reidy, a special commentator for CGTN, is a freelance writer based in London, specializing in international politics.