TEHRAN – The latest push to end the war in Ukraine highlights contradictions in Western diplomacy. Washington claims progress, Europe warns of principles, and Kyiv voices support for the “essence” of a U.S. plan, yet the real decisions are being shaped outside Ukraine. Moscow, meanwhile, maintains a consistent position, dismissing Europe’s involvement as unnecessary and preferring direct talks with Washington.

President Donald Trump is set to send his envoy, Steve Witkoff, to Moscow for discussions with Vladimir Putin. Trump says “progress” is being made and has already abandoned his earlier Thanksgiving deadline, remarking: “The deadline for me is when it’s over.” Ukraine has cautiously welcomed the U.S. initiative, but its role remains secondary, pressured to accept compromises designed elsewhere.

Europe’s leaders have reacted defensively. Ursula von der Leyen warned against “carving up” Ukraine and insisted Russia shows no real interest in peace. 

In Berlin, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz addressed the Bundestag during debate on the 2026 budget. He pledged that Germany will raise its support for Ukraine to €11.5 billion next year and stressed that peace must not mean “capitulation.” Merz said preserving peace in Europe is a guiding principle of his government, and insisted that no settlement can be genuine without the consent of both Ukraine and the Europeans. He also backed the idea of using frozen Russian assets to help fund Ukraine’s defense, while warning that Europe must remain a sovereign actor in its own right, not a pawn in wider negotiations.
Yet these statements reveal Europe’s deeper concern: that Washington could strike a deal with Moscow without Brussels’ input. 

The U.S. speaks of urgency but shifts its timelines. Europe speaks of values but struggles to keep pace. Both claim to protect Ukraine, yet both treat it as a pawn in a larger contest for power. Ukraine, the country at the center of the war, is pressured to endorse compromises shaped elsewhere. Its sovereignty is praised in speeches but ignored in practice.

Russia, by contrast, has kept its message steady. Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov dismissed Europe’s role as “completely unnecessary”. From Russia’s perspective, Europe’s interventions complicate negotiations and reflect political posturing rather than a genuine search for compromise. Moscow has avoided the shifting deadlines and rhetorical contradictions that mark Western diplomacy.

This situation exposes the weakness of Western rhetoric. The U.S. frames its plan as peace-making but appears ready to adjust principles if it secures a deal. Europe insists on values but is driven by fear of being sidelined. Ukraine remains caught in the middle, pressured to endorse compromises shaped elsewhere.