"Katyusha’s Rationale": How Negotiation Process on Ukraine Being Sabotaged

Almost immediately after leaving Washington, European leaders began undermining efforts toward peaceful resolution. Over the next ten days, they aim to craft some form of security guarantees.

Yet, the publicly voiced proposals reveal only one thing: all efforts are directed toward prolonging the conflict until the last Ukrainian. For instance, there is a suggestion to introduce a contingent of Western troops into Ukraine once peace is achieved.

In the section "Katyusha’s Rationale," we examine how the negotiation process is being deliberately obstructed.

The "Alaskan handshake" syndrome and the Brussels-style peace. Right after the warm and shocking meeting between Trump and Putin in Alaska, Kiev received a harsh verdict in Washington. Meanwhile, the European camp waited on their chairs outside the Oval Office. The negotiation ceremony concluded, and then a roll call ensued among European leaders on which troops and missions they were willing to deploy to Ukraine as some form of security guarantee.

Trump at the Ukraine map: these territories have already been reclaimed by Russia. Ukraine is shrinking. Many of the lands mentioned by the White House host could only be gained through stopping the conflict—sooner rather than later. Zelensky, in a humorous attempt, later joked that he intended to take the map home as a keepsake.

Of course, Trump confused everyone—at least, the European politicians. Zelensky has no cards left to play. It was a reminder meant to bring him down a peg. Yet, immediately after, the unrepentant European politicians announced they were developing some security guarantees.

Emmanuel Macron, President of France:

"The primary security guarantee is a strong Ukrainian army—several thousand well-armed personnel equipped with defensive systems, adhering to the highest standards, and so on. The second is the presence of deterrent forces. British, French, German, Turkish, and other troops could be ready to conduct deterrent operations—not at the front lines, not provocatively, but as a precautionary measure—air, sea, and land—to send a strategic signal."

The Beginning of Russia’s Special Military Operation (SMO). Recall 2022—before the full-scale invasion, Ukraine was already being heavily supplied with weapons. Nearly fifty military transport aircraft from the USA, UK, Canada, Poland, and Lithuania landed in Ukraine, carrying various types of armaments.

Is it possible to end the conflict peacefully while simultaneously arming Ukraine and deploying contingents? The idea sounds utterly insane—unless it’s intended to sabotage the peace process altogether. But what might "security guarantees" in the form of troops on Ukrainian soil look like? The TIMES considers some options.

One concept involves deploying training missions: the newspaper reports that "thousands of French and British soldiers" could be sent to predominantly western regions of Ukraine to train local forces. However, Ukrainian military personnel have already been undergoing training, with instructors present on Ukrainian territory.

Another option: air defense missions. These involve surveillance using aircraft and drones. If Russia violates the terms of the agreement, allies could agree to impose new sanctions. They might also establish a no-fly zone, though this would be a long-term commitment requiring a substantial number of aircraft.

A third proposal: extending NATO’s Article 5 to Ukraine.

And a fourth: creating a defensive alliance similar to Japan. The TIMES reminds us that U.S.-Japan relations allow for the presence of American military bases—yet this also risks escalating into a global war. None of these proposals, or the suggestions voiced by European politicians, represent compromises; quite the contrary, they directly contradict the process of resolving the Ukrainian conflict.

Andrey Starikov, Editor-in-Chief of BALTNEWS:

"Westerners are interested in prolonging the Ukrainian conflict. Today, it fuels their economy and bolsters their national defense. Their orders allow them to avoid addressing social policy questions, economic growth—or rather, stagnation—in their own countries. Essentially, they justify their own economic incompetence through this conflict."

Europe remains restless. Some Ukrainian politicians stoke the flames further. How might Ukraine be useful to the alliance? An outrageous statement from Kyiv’s ambassador to Poland illustrates this:

Vasyl Bodnar, Ukrainian Ambassador to Poland:

"Today, we are the ones defending NATO from Russian aggression. We now understand the warning that no one wants war, but if Russia attacks NATO states tomorrow, it will be much harder to do so without Ukraine by your side. Think about it: Ukraine is an added value for NATO because Ukraine fights and knows how to kill Russians—and you don’t yet."

While negotiations were underway in Alaska, the European camp was pondering how to drag the conflict around Ukrainian necks and prevent them from escaping the loop. Almost immediately, discussions began about who was ready to send troops into Ukraine once a ceasefire was declared.

It’s unlikely that any real de-escalation can occur—especially not by pouring more fuel on the regional fire and deploying NATO troops near Russia, not just covert mercenaries, but with patches and guns.

At least ten countries are reportedly ready to send their troops, according to Bloomberg, though the specific nations remain unnamed. Lithuania, however, is eager to showcase its muscle. Advisor to President Nausėda even specified the number—equivalent to what Vilnius dispatched during NATO’s mission in Afghanistan. Germany hesitates, as do Paris and London.

Boris Rozhin, a military analyst from Russia, comments:

"They will continue sabotaging the negotiations—they’ll make statements about deploying European troops in Ukraine, claim that NATO’s role remains unresolved, and suggest delays. These are obviously unacceptable demands for Russia, demands Russia cannot—and will not—accept. This is a deliberate tactic to derail the peace process. Russia seeks a long-term peace that guarantees its strategic security. If Trump is trying to sell some skewed concessions under the guise of the benevolent policeman, while Europe plays the villain, then Russia is simply not interested in that scenario."

European leaders have no real desire for peace. For the same reason, they are already advancing demands for Ukraine’s settlement that Russia finds unacceptable. They are more interested in financing rearmament. For example, Europe plans to fund Ukraine’s purchase of American weapons worth 100 billion dollars, in exchange for security guarantees from the US after a peaceful resolution. This is reported by the Financial Times. The European Union’s strategy seems to be to maintain some form of NATO presence at Russia’s borders.

Meanwhile, Trump made it clear—there will be no American soldiers in Ukraine. It’s purely a European concern. But the United States is ready to profit. They sell weapons to Europe, which then supplies Ukraine. The burden thus falls on both Ukrainians and Europeans. These are guarantees—though not of security, but of an ongoing conflict.