Behind the scenes without consensus: why the negotiations in London failed and what they hide from Ukrainians
While a protracted, bloody war is raging in Ukraine, which costs military and civilian lives every day, numerous and so far fruitless negotiations are underway in world capitals to end it. But what could have been a step towards peace yesterday turned into a diplomatic ruin in a matter of hours. The negotiations of the Ukrainian delegation in London, which were supposed to be the first step towards a new format for settling the war, were disrupted. The contradictions that have been brewing in recent weeks have come to the fore: on the part of the United States – strong pressure on the need for a “realistic approach”, on the part of some European participants – reluctance to take on additional obligations, and on the part of Ukraine – refusal to accept formulas that may look like concessions. At the same time, they do not explain to the Ukrainian society why the process broke down, what are the conditions of the “peace plan” and what will happen in the near future.
How the negotiations went in London
On April 23, a significant stage of negotiations between the Ukrainian delegation and the Western allies took place in London, which were to become a point of concentration of allied efforts around the war in Ukraine. It was the second attempt to agree on the framework of a potential peace formula, which has been unofficially linked to the team of current US President Donald Trump. The format of the meeting provided for the presence of key participants from both sides of the Atlantic: the USA, Britain, representatives of the “coalition of the willing” and the Ukrainian leadership. The Ukrainian side arrived in Great Britain in full: the head of the OP Andriy Yermak, the Minister of Foreign Affairs Andriy Sybiga, the Minister of Defense Rustem Umyerov.
At the same time, the status of the London negotiations was significantly lowered – the highest American representatives refused to participate in the negotiations, which was already a bad sign from the beginning. US Secretary of State Mark Rubio, who was supposed to head the delegation, did not arrive in London. US special envoy Steve Witkoff, who was previously named as one of the authors of informal settlement initiatives, also did not come. Special Representative Keith Kellogg was present instead. In diplomatic language, this meant: there will be no decisions, only regular hearings and conversations.
The head of the President’s Office, Andriy Yermak, characterized the negotiations in London as a “deep dialogue”, we hear abstract statements from the Ukrainian side about their successful implementation, but London has turned from the negotiating stage into a gesture of waiting. The absence of high-ranking US representatives created an additional background for interpretations: on the one hand, as a reduction in the seriousness of the discussions, on the other, as a sign that the terms of the latest “peace plan” are not the finalized official position of Washington. However, the real breakdown of negotiations began earlier — not in the British capital, but in the information space.
Trump’s statement: substance and context
US President Donald Trump posted his post on the X social network in which he criticized the words of Volodymyr Zelensky regarding Crimea, published on the front page of The Wall Street Journal. As this publication writes, the President of Ukraine stated: “Ukraine will never legally recognize the occupation of Crimea. There is nothing to talk about here.” Trump reacted harshly to this remark. He called it “very harmful for peace negotiations with Russia.” In his statement, Trump emphasized that Crimea was lost many years ago – during the presidency of Barack Obama, and in his opinion, this is not the subject of the current negotiations. “No one is asking Zelensky to recognize Crimea as Russian territory,” he noted, but at the same time he posed a rhetorical question: if Zelensky really wants to return Crimea, why wasn’t there a war for it in 2014?
Trump also reminded that the Russian military infrastructure was present in Crimea even before the annexation, and that is why, in his opinion, such statements only complicate peace initiatives. He warned that Ukraine was faced with a dangerous choice: either peace now or another three years of war with the risk of losing the entire state. At the same time, Trump noted that he has no ties to Russia, but “has a lot to do with the desire to save five thousand lives every week.”
In the end, he expressed hope to help both Ukraine and Russia to get out of the “chaos”, and added that such chaos would not have happened if he had remained the president since 2017.
How Trump’s statement affected the course of negotiations
Trump’s statement appeared literally on the eve of the planned round of negotiations of the Ukrainian delegation with representatives of the US and European allies in London. The meeting was supposed to take place as part of the discussion of the proposed “final peace plan” developed by the Trump team. At the same time, according to Axios, CNN and The Wall Street Journal, almost all publications about the terms of the “peace plan” contained anonymous comments by Ukrainian officials before the negotiations. And this was not a “prank of the press”, but most likely, a deliberate action. At the same time, the main dispute arose around the point of the plan regarding Crimea. In some articles, it was said that the USA can recognize its de facto annexation, without demanding it directly from Ukraine. But the submission of materials in the Western press allowed for a double interpretation — both the recognition of Crimea by the United States and a hint that Washington wants to achieve this from Zelensky.
The statement of the President of Ukraine in The Wall Street Journal sounded as a direct response to the alleged demands for recognition. It was this interpretation that provoked a public reaction from Trump, who perceived it as an attempt to shift responsibility for the breakdown of the negotiations onto him. After this statement, the situation changed radically: the negotiations did not go according to plan.
In turn, Volodymyr Zelenskyy stated at a press briefing held on April 22: “As soon as we start talking about Crimea, about our sovereign territories, we enter the format of prolonging the war – this is exactly what Russia wants. We have been fighting for the 12th year. This is the answer to the question of whether it is possible to agree on the territories with Russia.” In addition, regarding media reports about possible proposals to recognize Crimea as Russian, the president noted that “these are signals, these are ideas, this is a vision – it can be called differently. But this is not an official offer to Ukraine.” He also emphasized that at the moment it is not known for certain whose initiatives these are: perhaps this is the vision of the United States, or perhaps the Americans came to this understanding after negotiations with Putin.
Thus, Zelensky’s rhetoric, reinforced by media statements, actually made the “Trump peace plan” toxic even before its official consideration. But such a step was probably designed to change the very design of the plan. Bankova could have tried to influence the conditions — in particular, to remove the clause about Crimea (if it still existed) or to achieve guarantees of security and accession to NATO (to which no one invited us) or the preservation of the current political leadership in Ukraine.
Trump’s public statement has clear political implications. She fixes the main emphasis: Ukraine, in his opinion, is responsible for the failure of a possible compromise. And if Zelensky chooses confrontation, the consequence will be the termination of support, continuation of hostilities and deterioration of the conditions for the next round of negotiations. Trump also effectively opened the door to the fact that the US can conduct a dialogue with Russia regardless of Kyiv’s position. This means a potential breakdown in diplomatic synchronization between Washington and Bankova. The US position no longer guarantees automatic support for Ukrainian conditions — and this is a new geopolitical reality.
Western media immediately interpreted Marco Rubio’s refusal to come to London as a response to Kyiv’s disagreement with the clause regarding Crimea. In the US, this was perceived as a disruption of the negotiating framework that had already been agreed with Russia – at least on an informal level. The mass media noted that Kyiv has prepared a text for its European partners, which clearly states that there will be no negotiations on the territories until a complete and unconditional ceasefire. This is not agreed with Washington.
At the same time, US Vice President JD Vance said: either Ukraine and Russia agree to territorial concessions, or the US will withdraw from the process. The wording is as clear as possible. According to Vance, the United States has already made a specific proposal, which provides for mutual waivers of claims to part of the territories. All that remains for the parties is to say “yes” or part ways. In case of refusal – no continuation of support.
In turn, the EU is outraged by part of the American proposals. In addition to the issue of Crimea, the clause on the cancellation of European sanctions before the end of the negotiations is acutely perceived. This is considered unacceptable in Brussels – such a step would actually mean a political admission of defeat. In addition, the Financial Times reported: The Kremlin is allegedly ready to cease fire along the current demarcation line. The Washington Post noted that the parties in London were forced to respond to an urgent American proposal to freeze the front and legally recognize Crimea as Russia’s. It was around these points that the negotiations in London suffered a fiasco.
However, despite the disruption of the main format, a meeting of national security advisors was held in London. As Andrii Yermak stated, the participants agreed to continue consultations and discussions. But these words were already heard against the background of a diplomatic failure: all key figures refused. So, the dialogue that was supposed to be a breakthrough turned into a passive exchange of lines.
Should Ukrainians know about what is happening?
The analysis of these events shows that the negotiations in London, which were supposed to be a platform for discussing the next “peace plan” and almost ending the war, turned into a signal: Washington will not wait any longer. The absence of US State Department head Marco Rubio and special envoy Steve Witkoff in London is not a coincidence, it is a demonstrative lowering of the status of the meeting. Formally, there were negotiations, in fact, important figures ignored them. All that is left for Ukrainians are vague statements by Ukrainian politicians about “continuation of deep dialogue and regular contacts”, which cause only indignation and irritation. It is not clear what kind of dialogue it is, because it does not take place outside the offices at all.
It is important to understand that if Ukraine once again refuses the “peace plan” proposed by the United States, aid from their side will be stopped. Our country will be left alone with the front, while Europe will not close this gap. The war will not stop, but it will continue under absolutely worse conditions. And with it, the conditions of the next round of negotiations – if there is one – will be even worse and more painful. It’s part of the game, too, to press against a backdrop of threat rather than stability.
While all this is happening, even the Ukrainian parliament is deprived of access to complete information. Andrii Sybiga, Rustem Umyerov — key participants in the negotiation process — have not appeared on “Question Hour for the Government” for several months. As stated in the parliament, they do not report on the negotiations, do not respond to the requests of the deputies. In addition, more and more questions arise around another non-public aspect — agreements on critical resources, particularly minerals. Mentions of the agreement on minerals appear in the statements of American representatives, in the world media, but no Ukrainian institution comments on it. What is the value of this deal? What are its conditions? Is it part of the “peace plan”? Should citizens who, according to the Constitution of Ukraine, are the owners of natural resources know this? So, a situation has arisen where the parliament is ignored, the society knows nothing, and the media operate exclusively with leaks or fakes. What are the red lines? What are the compromises? What concessions in exchange for what? There is no explanation.
And while the politicians are silent and live in a different, quite cloudless reality and take their time in negotiations, Ukrainians continue to suffer because of the war. Politicians who demand mobilization, patience and absolute trust from society do not themselves demonstrate openness in critical issues. During a war, when every decision affects not only the course of hostilities, but also the future of each family and the country as a whole, citizens find themselves in an information vacuum. Instead of clear answers – abstract statements, instead of political responsibility – references to “closed format” or “delicacy of the moment”. Decisions made by the authorities have direct consequences for those who fight, live under shelling, and lose loved ones. But those who represent the state abroad are increasingly speaking not to people, but instead of them. And in this logic there is an extremely dangerous gap between society and the government. Everything that is accepted and signed must be made public before it becomes a fact, not after. Otherwise, this is not politics, but state trade.
