When Logic Fails

– When the Obvious Becomes Political Theater

Europe pretends Trump can sign a peace deal. He can’t, and everyone knows it.

Here’s what some people seem to think a peace agreement looks like.

It’s completely incomprehensible that, after six months of the same tiresome refrain, we still hear politicians, heads of state, and the media endlessly repeat that “Ukraine must be part of any peace deal” – as if that was ever in question. No serious player has ever proposed leaving Ukraine out of an agreement about its own future. Trump can’t – and has never said he would – sign a peace deal on Ukraine’s behalf. Yet this keeps being wheeled out as some sort of warning sign every time he mentions negotiations.

The reason this is still a talking point has nothing to do with international law or reality. It’s about a political narrative repeated so often that people eventually start believing it’s something to worry about. It’s as if the world has completely forgotten basic logic: only those actually at war can sign the agreement that ends it.

The Obvious Principle
In international law it’s simple: only the parties in a conflict can sign a peace agreement. Everyone else can facilitate, witness, or guarantee it – but they can’t replace one of the sides. This holds whether you’re the world’s most powerful president or the leader of a neighboring country.

Think of a married couple in crisis: a marriage counselor can mediate, advise, and help them find a way forward – but only the couple can sign the divorce papers. Or a court case: a judge can strongly encourage a settlement, but the parties themselves have to negotiate and sign it. Or two neighbors in a dispute: a third neighbor can’t write an agreement with just one of them and pretend it’s binding.

It’s the same here: the U.S. can pressure Russia, coordinate with Ukraine, and contribute proposals – but Russia and Ukraine have to put their own signatures on a peace document for it to be valid.

The History Behind the Principle
The principle “Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine” isn’t some new invention to keep Trump in check. It emerged in 2014, after Russia annexed Crimea and started the war in Donbas. The first attempts at peace negotiations began under the Normandy Format – Germany, France, Russia, and Ukraine. It quickly became clear that Russia was trying to influence Ukraine’s future over their heads.

After the Minsk agreements in 2014 and 2015 – which many Ukrainians felt leaned too far toward Russian interests – the principle became non-negotiable: no agreements about Ukraine without Ukraine’s participation and approval. It became anchored in both Ukrainian and Western diplomacy, and by the time of the full-scale invasion in 2022, it was already a cornerstone of all official policy.

In other words – this has been a given for ten years. Yet suddenly it became the main topic on February 12, 2025, when Trump called Putin and declared that negotiations should start immediately. That caused strong concern in Europe and among Ukrainian leaders, and the media quickly rushed out warnings that “Ukraine must be part of any deal.” Ukraine’s foreign minister stated: “Nothing can be discussed on Ukraine without Ukraine,” and both the EU and defense leaders stressed that talks without Ukraine would fail. Since that day, this has been a repeated refrain – every time Trump utters the word “negotiations.”

Recently, Zelensky himself has sharpened the message further. In talks with leaders across the Western world, he has repeated that he neither can nor wants to sign a deal that gives Russia a single meter of Ukrainian land. He has also made it clear that he does not support a Trump–Putin meeting if it’s seen as an attempt to negotiate territory behind Ukraine’s back.

When It’s Trump, Everything Gets Flipped Upside Down
When Macron, Scholz, or other European leaders negotiate with Putin, it’s called “diplomacy” and “necessary talks.” When Trump hints he’ll do the same, it’s portrayed as if he’s plotting to sell out Ukraine. The difference isn’t in what’s actually being said or done, but in who’s doing it.

Trump challenges the entire European premise that the war must be won militarily – no matter the cost – and that the U.S. should foot a large part of the bill. That’s a thought many in European politics and media find deeply uncomfortable, because it shakes both the strategy and their reliance on American support.

But the suspicion toward Trump runs deeper than that. Since 2016, he’s been the target of a massive narrative claiming he’s secretly a Russian agent – a narrative built up by political opponents, much of the media, and the Democrats in the U.S. Even though those claims have since been dismissed, many still believe them. With that picture in people’s minds, any contact Trump has with Putin is interpreted as treason – no matter the context.

How This Narrative Hurts Negotiations
The problem with this repeated “Ukraine must be involved” line is that it’s not just empty talk. It has an effect. It creates a climate where anything from Trump is automatically met with skepticism, no matter what it is. It also signals to Ukraine that the West expects them to reject anything that could look like “Trump’s deal” unless it’s 100% on their terms.

The result may be that positions harden even further. It’s hard enough to get two warring sides to agree. When we also build political barriers around the process itself, we make the job even more impossible.

The Missing Background
Russia is the aggressor, and the responsibility for this war lies entirely with them. They should withdraw completely, return all occupied land, and pay reparations for reconstruction. That’s the moral and legal starting point. But if we’re honest, that’s not the whole picture.

In the decades after the Cold War, Europe made itself more vulnerable. We dismantled our own defenses, convinced that large wars in Europe were a thing of the past. We made ourselves dependent on American security, not just as a backup but as a pillar. At the same time, we bought massive amounts of Russian oil and gas, giving the Kremlin economic muscle – right when Russia was showing increasingly authoritarian tendencies. We pushed NATO and the EU eastward, fully aware this would be seen as a strategic threat in Moscow – and chose not to care about the reaction.

The result is a Europe that, on paper, stands united against Russian aggression, but in practice is deeply dependent on both American leadership and American money to maintain support for Ukraine. And we have to be realistic: Putin is unlikely to give up Crimea or all of Donbas voluntarily. That doesn’t mean one should accept annexation as a legitimate reality, but it does mean that negotiations – at some point – are unavoidable if the war is to end.

Stop Playing Theater
Pretending Trump can “sign peace” without Ukraine is political theater. It’s legally impossible, diplomatically meaningless, and a distraction from what actually matters: how to get Russia and Ukraine to sign an agreement that ends the war.

In recent months, Zelensky has gone hard on stating that he neither can – under Ukrainian law – nor wants to sign any deal that hands over a single meter of Ukraine to Russia. He’s reminded world leaders of this in meeting after meeting, making it clear he does not support any Putin–Trump meeting if it involves territorial concessions. With massive Western military and financial promises behind him, he appears confident that Russia can be pushed out entirely, and that all of Ukraine can be reclaimed.

The problem is that Putin is unlikely to withdraw without being able to frame it as a victory at home. Many believe he thinks he can win if Russia just holds out a bit longer, hoping the U.S. cuts support and Ukraine eventually runs out of soldiers and resources. As long as neither side is willing to give ground on their most absolute demands, it’s hard to see how a deal can be reached.

The longer we spend hammering in an obvious truth everyone already knows, the less time we have to tackle the hard compromises that will actually be needed. If the goal is peace, the campaign-style journalism aimed at one man has to stop – and the focus needs to shift to the content of the negotiations, no matter who leads them.