ANALYSIS: Trump Is Squandering His Historic Chance for Peace in Ukraine

Introduction: The Moment for Peace Is Slipping Away, and Trump Holds the Key

Eighteen Months of Effort, Zero Tangible Results

When Donald Trump returned to the White House in January 2025, he carried a resounding promise: to end the war in Ukraine in twenty-four hours. Eighteen months later, bombs continue to fall on Kharkiv, on Dnipro, on Odessa. Peace talks are at a standstill. And according to the American think tank Defense Priorities, in an analysis published on June 16, 2026, this isn't accidental: it's the direct result of a fundamentally flawed strategy driven by Washington.

The text, authored by Jennifer Kavanagh, director of military analysis at Defense Priorities, is unequivocal: Trump’s efforts in Ukraine have been counterproductive, pushing peace further away rather than bringing it closer. Three diplomatic paths were launched, a few prisoner exchanges took place, but on the issues that matter—territory, security guarantees, Moscow's commitment—no real progress has been made. Meanwhile, Putin’s Russia continues to nibble away and bombard with relentless consistency.

The G7 Summit in Évian: A Late Surge or a New Illusion?

From June 15 to 17, 2026, the leaders of the seven largest industrialized democracies met in Évian-les-Bains, France, on the shores of Lake Geneva. Volodymyr Zelensky was invited at the initiative of Emmanuel Macron, who was determined to keep the pressure on Trump to re-engage the United States in the Ukrainian dossier. After months of American distraction toward the Middle East—and a freshly signed ceasefire agreement with Iran—Washington seemed ready to turn its eyes back to Ukraine. Trump declared in Évian that Russia should make peace and that he would do everything in his power. But two European diplomats immediately put things in perspective: he remained uncommitted on additional sanctions against Moscow. Everyone smiles. No one moves.

It is this gap between words and deeds that makes the Defense Priorities analysis so relevant—and so urgent. The window for a deal is closing. That isn't a metaphor. It's a factual warning. And at the heart of this mess are specific political choices, identifiable negotiating errors, and an American will that struggles to materialize into real pressure on Vladimir Putin.

Defense Priorities’ Central Thesis: A Counterproductive Approach

Three Structural Flaws in Trump’s Strategy

Jennifer Kavanagh identifies three major flaws in the Trump method. First flaw: a territorial obsession. Washington has structured negotiations around a simple trade—Ukraine ceding territories in the Donbas it still controls in exchange for American-European security guarantees. This formula, repeated ad nauseam by Vice President JD Vance—the Russians want territory, the Ukrainians want guarantees—exaggerates the importance of territory for Moscow and underestimates the depth of the security dilemma for Kyiv. Kavanagh wrote it in black and white: this approach hasn't worked and won't work.

Second flaw: unrealistic promises made to each side. The Americans hinted to Kyiv that solid security guarantees could be offered while signaling to Moscow that NATO remained out of reach for Ukraine. This double-talk destroyed trust in the process. Third flaw: negotiation silos. Talks were conducted in parallel—Kyiv on one side, Moscow on the other—without bringing all parties to the same table to address the most sensitive political questions. The result: no agreement on anything essential.

The Toxic Role of Middle Eastern Distraction

The immediate cause of the current deadlock is clearly named by Defense Priorities: the American war against Iran, triggered in March 2026, absorbed all of Washington’s diplomatic energy. Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, Trump’s special envoys, abandoned the Ukrainian file to focus on Tehran. A fourth round of negotiations scheduled for March 2026 was simply canceled. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov called the situation a "situational pause"—diplomatic shorthand for: we are waiting, and in the meantime, our armies are advancing.

But Kavanagh insists: it would be a mistake to attribute the failure solely to the Iranian distraction. The flaws run deeper. Even without the war against Iran, Trump’s strategy in Ukraine contained fundamental defects that would have eventually led to the same result: stalled negotiations, a Russia in no hurry to conclude, and a Ukraine forced to hold exhausting front lines with no prospect of an honorable exit.

Zelensky in Évian: The Resistance of a Lone Man Against a Mechanism Grinding Him Down

A Ukrainian President Who Won't Fold, Even Under Maximum Pressure

Volodymyr Zelensky arrived at the G7 in Évian in a delicate position. He didn't initially have a bilateral meeting on the official agenda with Trump. It was Macron who insisted on a face-to-face. Zelensky finally got that meeting, and he used it to push for American missile production licenses that Ukraine desperately needs to strengthen its air defense. His request was, according to him, received positively. But he learned long ago not to mistake Trump’s smile for a firm commitment.

Zelensky maintained a consistent line in all his public interventions at Évian: Ukraine will not cede sovereign territory. He reaffirmed that any negotiation must include Europeans at the table, not just Washington. He asked that Trump serve as a mediator who pressures Putin, not as an arbiter who imposes conditions on Kyiv. His formula, repeated before the cameras, says it all: I believe Donald Trump can accomplish this. Him, primarily, alone. This is both a strategic tribute and a direct assignment of responsibility. Zelensky is playing a game of rare subtlety.

The Moral Strength of a Resistance That the West Must Not Betray

While diplomats negotiate maps and buffer zones, Ukrainian soldiers are holding the lines. According to the Ukrainian commander-in-chief, General Oleksandr Syrskyi, Ukrainian forces recaptured more than 600 square kilometers of territory in 2026, and in May alone, they regained more land than they lost. The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) confirms: the Russian offensive momentum is slowing dramatically compared to 2025. This isn't a conflict where Ukraine is collapsing. It's a conflict where Ukraine is holding—and sometimes advancing.

This military reality contradicts the Trumpian narrative that Kyiv is in a position of absolute weakness and must accept any conditions. On the contrary: Ukraine's negotiating position has strengthened in 2026. Its long-range drones are hitting Russian logistical infrastructure hundreds of miles from the front lines. Russia launched more than 5,400 drones against Ukraine in June alone—a record since the start of the war in February 2022—a sign not of dominant strength, but of an army compensating for ground losses with blind aerial terror.

Putin, the Big Winner of Western Slowness

Un stratège qui a appris à attendre

Vladimir Putin is in no hurry. This is the constant that all converging analyses have indicated since the start of the talks. Every round of negotiations has concluded with Moscow repeating its maximalist conditions: Ukrainian withdrawal from the Donbas, recognition of its illegal annexations, permanent neutrality for Ukraine, and an end to any prospect of NATO membership. These conditions are not starting points. They are red lines from which Putin has never backed down an inch.

Dutch Prime Minister Rob Jetten, at the European summit on June 18-19, 2026, in Brussels, said what everyone knows: "So far, we see no willingness from Putin to enter into real negotiations." Austrian Prime Minister Christian Stocker added that he did not have the impression that Russia wanted to sit at the table to negotiate a peace solution. This European consensus is clear. What is less clear is Trump’s ability to draw the necessary conclusions: without real pressure on Moscow, no peace is possible.

Trump’s Incredible Indulgence Toward Putin

Since his return to power, Trump has refused to impose new sanctions on Russia despite its refusal of any truce. He suspended military aid to Ukraine in March 2025 before resuming it a week later under pressure. He called Zelensky a "dictator," echoing a narrative straight out of Kremlin propaganda. He has hinted at U.S. recognition of the illegal annexation of Crimea and a permanent veto on Ukraine’s NATO membership—two major concessions to Putin without getting anything in return. In Évian, he did indicate that waivers on Russian oil might be dropped, but he hasn't moved on the broader sanctions Europe is demanding.

Trump says he wants peace. But his actions signal to Putin that the West is divided, that Washington is distracted, and that time is on Moscow’s side. It’s the classic diplomatic trap: negotiating with someone who has no interest in reaching a deal. Jennifer Kavanagh formulated it with surgical clarity: Trump has failed to put any real pressure on Putin. Without coercive leverage, without a credible threat of heavier sanctions or increased weaponry for Ukraine, the American negotiator arrives at the table empty-handed.

The Territorial Problem: A False Equation at the Heart of the Process

Why "Territory for Guarantees" Is a Formula Doomed to Fail

The framework proposed by Washington is as seductive in its simplicity as it is ineffective in its logic. Vance summarized it clearly: the Russians want territory, the Ukrainians want security guarantees. It would therefore be enough to trade one for the other. Defense Priorities demolishes this reasoning. This framework exaggerates the role of territory for Russia. Moscow doesn't just want land. It wants to neutralize Ukraine as a state, prevent its Western integration, and restore an imperial sphere of influence. Territorial concessions will not satisfy these objectives—they will fuel them.

At the same time, Western security guarantees for Ukraine lack credibility as long as their actual content remains vague. Zelensky said in March 2026 that the Americans were ready to finalize guarantees "at the highest level" as soon as Kyiv withdrew from the Donbas. But what nature would these guarantees take? A letter of intent? A bilateral treaty? Article 5-style protection? The answer never came clearly. Without clarity on what Ukraine would receive in exchange, no Ukrainian leader can sign away territory before their people—neither politically nor morally.

The Ignored Question: The Problem of Credible Commitment

Jennifer Kavanagh identifies what political scientists call the credible commitment problem: convincing a belligerent that its enemy will actually respect its peace commitments once the deal is signed. This is the central challenge of ending any war. Ukraine has every reason to doubt: in 1994, the Budapest Memorandum provided it with security guarantees signed by the United States, Russia, and the United Kingdom in exchange for surrendering its nuclear arsenal. Twenty years later, Russia annexed Crimea. The West did nothing. This precedent haunts every negotiation.

Offering Ukraine "conditional" or "in principle" American guarantees without an automatic enforcement mechanism is offering them a new Budapest Memorandum. Zelensky and his team know exactly what that is worth. That is why they insist on NATO membership or, failing that, binding bilateral guarantees with an obligation for an immediate military response. Trump, for his part, has never been willing to offer anything that precise. And it is exactly this vacuum that is blocking the negotiations.

The Counter-Analysis: Trump, a Necessary Evil but Badly Utilized

Without Trump, There Is No Process at All

It would be intellectually dishonest not to acknowledge what the Defense Priorities thesis itself admits: without Donald Trump, il n'y aurait aucun processus de paix américain. Joe Biden managed the war by supporting Ukraine militarily and economically, but he refused any direct diplomacy with Moscow. Trump broke that taboo. He resumed dialogue with Putin, he launched parallel tracks with Kyiv and Moscow, and he obtained prisoner exchanges—314 people released during the negotiation rounds in Abu Dhabi and Geneva. These are not zero results. These are lives saved and families reunited.

More fundamentally, Trump has put the Ukrainian conflict under active diplomatic pressure in a way that Biden never did. He set a deadline—June 2026—that forced both sides to move, however clumsily. During their heated exchanges, he wrung from Zelensky a posture more open to negotiation than what Kyiv was showing in 2024. Trump’s good faith on Ukraine exists. The problem is its execution.

The Limits of an Unpredictable Diplomat in a Long-Term Conflict

Trump applies the same logic to Ukrainian geopolitics as he does to his real estate deals: maximum short-term pressure, the search for a quick media-friendly win, and low tolerance for structural complexity. This style can work in a commercial negotiation where both parties have symmetrical economic interests. It fails in a conflict where Putin values duration, where Ukraine values survival, and where national security issues are not negotiated like the sale price of beachfront property.

The Defense Priorities analysis doesn't ask Trump to abandon his role as a mediator. It asks him to rethink his method. Less territory, more politics. Realistic promises, not wishful thinking. Multilateral negotiations including Europe, not bilateral talks between Washington and Moscow that leave Kyiv in the waiting room. Trump has the power to be the president who ends the largest land war in Europe since 1945. He is just giving himself the wrong tools.

Europe on the Periphery: Absent from the Process, but Increasingly Central

The European Paradox: Paying for the War, Being Excluded from the Peace

Europe is massively funding the Ukrainian war effort. It has committed hundreds of billions of euros in military, economic, and humanitarian aid. It has welcomed millions of refugees. And yet, when negotiations were held in Abu Dhabi and Geneva, Europe was not at the table. The process was trilateral: the United States, Ukraine, and Russia. The Europeans were watching from the outside. Emmanuel Macron was clear in Évian: "The right negotiation is one where Ukraine and Russia are present at the table, along with the Europeans and the Americans."

This position reflects a growing consensus. The European Council, at its summit on June 18-19, 2026, in Brussels, adopted principles supporting a strengthened role for the EU in negotiations. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen declared on X that "the momentum is shifting in favor of Ukraine." EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas has been preparing a common position framework since February 2026. Europe is mobilizing. The question is whether Trump will let them into the negotiation room.

The Coalition of the Willing and the Risk of a Two-Speed Peace

Parallel to the official negotiations, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom—the E3—have developed their own communication channels with Moscow, without formal coordination with the rest of the EU. Lithuania has sharply criticized this approach: only a united Europe can speak with a credible voice against Putin. A leader alone, even Macron, represents only his country. And Putin is a master at exploiting European divisions.

The risk of a "two-speed" peace is real: a deal negotiated by Washington and Moscow, endorsed under pressure by Kyiv, and presented to Europe as a fait accompli that it will have to fund for decades without having had its say. This scenario, which is clearly what some of Trump’s advisors are envisioning, would be a major strategic failure for the West—and a profound victory for Putin, who would have succeeded in fracturing the transatlantic alliance.

The Central Error: Neglecting the Political Roots of the Conflict

A War of Security, Not Just a War of Territory

Defense Priorities states it bluntly: the fundamental problem with the Trump approach is that it treats a national security conflict as a real estate dispute. Putin did not invade Ukraine to get land. He invaded Ukraine because he refuses to accept that a sovereign state on Russia's doorstep can freely choose its Western alignment. NATO enlargement, Ukraine's European integration, Kyiv’s functioning democracy—all of this represents an existential threat to his authoritarian model in the eyes of the Kremlin.

No territorial cession will remove this fear. A Ukraine amputated of part of the Donbas but still oriented toward the West will still be perceived as a threat by Moscow ten years from now. That is why the true object of the negotiation must be political: What status for Ukraine? What bilateral guarantees against further aggression? How to prevent the Russo-Ukrainian border from becoming a permanent fault line between two irreconcilable value systems? These questions cannot be resolved by swapping maps. They require a deep political agreement that no one, so far, has had the courage to truly initiate.

The Risk of a Deal That Prepares the Next War

Concluding a poorly constructed peace could be worse than continuing to hold the lines. If the agreement doesn't solve the credible commitment problem—if Putin is not convinced that Ukraine will be armed to the teeth and sustainably supported by the West—then the ceasefire will only be a rearmament pause. Russia did this in the Donbas after the Minsk agreements in 2015. It used the time of peace to prepare for the massive 2022 invasion. History does not lie.

That is why the model of "armed neutral alignment" proposed by some experts—including Kavanagh herself in a December 2025 report—deserves attention. The idea: a Ukraine without NATO membership, but equipped with a massive defensive arsenal, funded first by the United States and then taken over long-term by Europe. A Ukraine capable of deterring any further aggression through its military capacity alone. This isn't the ideal solution—Zelensky still prefers NATO. But in the current political context, it might be the only viable lasting peace.

Zelensky, Drones, and Resilience: Ukraine Is Changing the Rules of the Game

A Silent Military Revolution Changing the Balance of Power

While the diplomats debate, Ukraine is transforming its military toolkit. Its intermediate-range drones have become its master weapon. In May-June 2026, according to assessments from Defense Priorities and ISW analysts, Ukrainian forces acquired fire control via drone over occupied areas located hundreds of miles from the lines of contact—including cities like Luhansk, Starobilsk, and Alchevsk. Strikes on Russian ammunition depots, fuel depots, and logistical railways are significantly disrupting the support capacity of Putin’s army.

Russia has retaliated with a strategy of massive terror: more than 5,400 drones launched against Ukraine in June 2026, according to official Ukrainian figures—a historic record since February 2022. But this escalation also reveals the Russian inability to achieve decisive results on the ground by conventional means. They hit the cities, they terrorize civilians, but they no longer break through the front lines. Ukraine is holding. And it is striking back further and more precisely than ever.

What Ukrainian Military Resistance Says at the Negotiating Table

These military realities have a direct implication for the negotiations: Ukraine is not losing. It does not need to accept humiliating conditions to survive. Zelensky presented this reality in Évian with a clarity that his European allies supported. Ursula von der Leyen confirmed the shift in momentum. The G7 collectively recognized that Russia did not have the initiative. This realization profoundly changes the equation: if Trump wants a deal, he cannot do it by pressuring Kyiv alone. He must pressure Moscow.

And that is where the crux of it lies. To date, Trump has not exerted real and sustained pressure on Putin. He has talked. He has threatened to sanction. He has not sanctioned. He has promised to arm. He has hesitated. He suspended aid. He resumed it. This inconsistency is read by the Kremlin as a signal: America isn't truly ready to raise the cost of continuing the war for Russia. As long as this signal doesn't change, Putin will calculate that he can wait longer.

China, Iran, North Korea: The Axis of Chaos Supporting Putin Behind the Scenes

A Technological Proxy War

The analysis of the Ukrainian war cannot ignore what is happening on the periphery of the diplomatic stage. China provides Russia with electronic components, dual-use tools, and economic resources that partially offset the effect of Western sanctions. Beijing does not send soldiers. It sends semiconductors and buys Russian oil at a discount, indirectly financing Putin’s war machine. North Korea, for its part, sends shells in bulk and, according to several analyses, military technicians who help maintain Russian ballistic capabilities. Iran has supplied the Shahed drones that have constituted the bulk of Moscow’s terror arsenal against Ukrainian cities for two years. The signing of the American memorandum with Tehran in June 2026 could, if it holds, cut off this flow—but that is far from certain. These links between Russia and the Sino-Iranian-North Korean axis constitute a structural support system for the war that Western sanctions alone cannot dismantle. Peace diplomacy must integrate this dimension: if Putin can continue to resupply despite the pressure, he has no reason to negotiate seriously.

The Threat of an "Imposed Peace" as a Geopolitical Gift to Beijing

There is a nightmare scenario that the most lucid Western strategists mention in hushed tones: a peace imposed on Ukraine, not negotiated, which would consecrate Putin’s coercive power and send a devastating message to Beijing about the value of American guarantees. If Washington can abandon Ukraine under Russian pressure, what weight will American promises have in Taiwan? In Seoul? In Tokyo? Trump’s management of the Ukrainian dossier has direct geopolitical implications that go far beyond the conflict itself. This is the strongest argument in favor of a just peace and not a dressed-up surrender: the West’s credibility as a guarantor of global security is also at stake in Ukraine. If the West shows that massive military aggression pays—even partially—it encourages other revisionist powers to test its limits. China is watching. It is evaluating. And every shameful compromise tears a page from the deterrence manual that the West has built over seventy years.

What Should Trump Do If He Were Truly Serious?

Rebooting the Process: Defense Priorities’ Three Recommendations

Defense Priorities doesn't just criticize. Kavanagh’s analysis formulates specific recommendations. First: abandon the territorial obsession as the only negotiating lever. The "territory for guarantees" framework must be expanded to include discussions on regional security architecture, Ukraine’s future status, and verification mechanisms for a lasting ceasefire. Second: make only realistic promises to each side. Don't promise Kyiv guarantees that cannot be kept. Don't hint to Moscow that major concessions on NATO are possible without something in return. Third: break the negotiation silos. Stop treating Kyiv and Moscow separately and start creating multilateral formats where all parties—including Europe—are present simultaneously. This would allow for addressing the "most sensitive political questions" that have been carefully avoided until now. Kavanagh acknowledges that this reorientation will be difficult. But it is urgent: the window is closing, and every week spent perpetuating a broken process is a week won by Putin.

Economic Sanctions as an Unused Lever

There is a tool that Trump hasn't truly activated: maximum economic pressure on Moscow. Sanctions exist, but they have been managed gently, often accompanied by waivers and exceptions. The Russian energy sector continues to function. The "ghost fleet" of tankers bypassing sanctions continues to ferry Putin’s oil to Asian markets. At the Évian G7, leaders discussed strengthening sanctions on the Russian energy sector and launching the 21st package of European sanctions. This is a good direction. But these measures will only have an effect if Washington actively coordinates the enforcement of sanctions instead of diluting them with unilateral exceptions. Trump indicated in Évian that Russian oil waivers could be dropped now that Iran had signed a deal. This is an opening. It must be followed by action. Combined with an accelerated delivery of air defense systems to Ukraine—specifically the missile production licenses Zelensky requested directly from Trump—and a reintegration of Europe into the negotiation process, this renewed economic pressure could create the conditions for a serious commitment from Moscow. Not a quick peace. A true peace.

The Question of the Hour: Is the Window Really Closing?

Autumn 2026 as the Last Realistic Chance

Several signals are converging to indicate that autumn 2026 represents the next serious diplomatic window. Zelensky himself indicated at the G7 that he wanted negotiations with Russia to be organized before winter. European advisors estimate that the most realistic format would associate Ukraine and Russia with representatives from the United States and Europe. Trump’s envoys—Witkoff and Kushner—are expected to resume contacts with Moscow after the finalization of the Iranian deal. The schedule is tight. And every week of delay allows Putin to consolidate his positions on the ground.

Defense Priorities warns: with the window closing, the urgency of correcting the process is absolute. Continuing on the same trajectory is not a neutral option—it is actively choosing failure. If Trump wants to include peace in Ukraine in his presidential legacy, he has one last chance to do it correctly. The Évian G7 created momentum. The Iranian deal freed up diplomatic bandwidth. Objective conditions exist for something to change. The question is whether Trump is ready to change his method.

The Signaux Contradictoires de Washington

The problem is that the signals coming from the White House remain contradictory. On the one hand, Trump stated in Évian that "Russia should make a deal" and that he would do all he could. On the other, he continues to see the conflict as a war toward which he is "neutral," refuses to impose new sanctions, and hasn't changed his underlying position that Ukraine should concede territory without solid guarantees. This contradiction between words and deeds is exactly what Kavanagh points out in her analysis. It is not enough to want peace. One must create the conditions for it.

The true test of Trump’s credibility on Ukraine will come in the weeks following Évian. If Witkoff and Kushner show up in Moscow with a clear mandate to exert real pressure—threatened sanctions, conditional weaponry, non-negotiable demands—and if Europe is formally included in the process, then perhaps something will move. Otherwise, we will have witnessed another media summit with no tomorrow, and the window for peace will close on another winter of war.

The Transatlantic Rift: The True Legacy of the Trump Method in Ukraine

Une alliance mise à l'épreuve comme jamais depuis 1945

Beyond the Ukrainian conflict itself, Trump’s chaotic management of peace diplomacy has produced a massive side effect: an unprecedented rift within the transatlantic alliance. Europeans have learned the hard way that Washington could suspend military aid to an ally under pressure, rehabilitate Kremlin narratives, consider recognizing illegal annexations, and conduct strategic negotiations without consulting its partners. These are not minor breaches of diplomatic protocol. They are profound signals about the nature of America under Trump.

Macron privately admitted in Évian that he had "difficult conversations" with Trump regarding Ukraine. Starmer, Merz, and he are coordinating in parallel to Washington. Europe is building its own networks, its own positions, its own red lines—because it can no longer afford to bet everything on American consistency. It is a rational adaptation to a new reality. But this adaptation has a price: the West increasingly fails to speak with a single voice, and Putin profits from it at every turn.

What Ukraine Reveals About the Future of the Global Order

The Ukrainian conflict has become, whether we like it or not, a test of the solidity of the rules-based international order. Can one conquer territory by force in 2026 and be rewarded with a peace deal that consecrates those conquests? If the answer is yes, the message sent to all revisionist powers is clear: violence pays. If the answer is no—if Putin must pay a real price for his aggression, even without a return to 1991 borders—then the message is different: the international community still has teeth.

Trump is faced with this historic choice. He has the opportunity, with the tools at his disposal, to build a peace that lasts. A peace that is not a dressed-up Ukrainian surrender. A peace that is tough enough on Putin to deter future adventures, and viable enough for Zelensky to defend before the Ukrainian people. This is not impossible. But it requires political courage, method, and a long-term strategic vision that, so far, the Trump administration has not truly demonstrated.

Conclusion: The Hour of Truth for Trump—and for the West

A Real Chance That Demands Real Change

The Évian G7 summit created a window. The Iranian deal freed up American diplomatic energy. Zelensky is engaged. Europeans are mobilized. The context has never been as favorable in eighteen months for a true rebalancing of the peace process. Defense Priorities has provided the intellectual roadmap: less territorial obsession, more realism on guarantees, more European inclusion. This isn't a miracle cure. It's an indispensable course correction.

Trump has the levers. He has the personal authority to call Putin and Zelensky. He has the ability to impose sanctions that bite. He has the possibility of delivering the weaponry Ukraine demands. The question that remains is simple and brutal: does he truly have the will? Not the will to give a speech in Évian. The will to change his method, to accept complexity, to build a ten-year peace rather than looking for a headline for tomorrow morning.

Ukraine, the West, and the Refusal of Defeat

What is certain is that Ukraine will not surrender. Zelensky has proven, since the first day of the massive invasion in 2022, that he will not sell out his people to buy a temporary lull. The Ukrainian people, who are rebuilding cities, training new recruits, and innovating on the battlefield, are not defeated. The West cannot, must not, let this resilience turn into a useless sacrifice for lack of diplomatic courage in Washington.

The Defense Priorities analysis from June 16, 2026, is a serious warning, coming from a think tank that is not inherently sympathetic to the Ukrainian cause—on the contrary, it has often pleaded for American restraint. When even this voice says that Trump is missing his chance, it is time to truly listen. The momentum is there. The political will, however, must still be found. And time, as always in this conflict, is running out.

Signed Maxime Marquette, columnist

Sources

Primary Sources

Defense Priorities — Trump is blowing his chance to make peace in Ukraine, by Jennifer Kavanagh — June 16, 2026

Kyiv Independent — EU leaders push bloc to assert itself on Russia peace talks, by Chris Powers — June 18-19, 2026

The Guardian — European leaders urge Trump to host Zelenskyy-Putin talks, G7 summit — June 16, 2026

Secondary Sources

Defense Priorities — A Flawed Formula for Peace in Ukraine — April 7, 2026

Wikipedia — 52nd G7 Summit, Évian-les-Bains, France, June 15-17, 2026

Lviv Herald — The Ukrainian front line in June 2026 — June 9, 2026

Washington Times — Trump, Zelenskyy meeting shifts G7 focus to Ukraine war — June 16, 2026

NPR — U.S. gave Ukraine and Russia June deadline to reach peace agreement, Zelenskyy says — February 8, 2026