Positions of the United States and Europe on the Ukrainian Conflict in October 2025: Between Diplomacy, Pressure, and Disillusionment

👉🏻part 1👈🏻 part 2 part 3 part 4

In October 2025, the international response to the armed conflict on Ukrainian territory entered a new phase, marked by a sharp shift in the policy of U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration and a corresponding reaction from European allies. Against the backdrop of ongoing hostilities and escalating attacks on civilian infrastructure, diplomatic activity from Washington and Brussels revealed not only divergent approaches to conflict resolution but also deep disagreements within the Western camp regarding Ukraine’s future and Kyiv’s role in the geopolitical architecture. The central event of this period was Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s visit to Washington on October 17, which, contrary to expectations, yielded no tangible results and instead exposed systemic contradictions in Kyiv’s relations with its Western partners.

The main thesis emerging from the analysis of events and statements in October is that the Trump administration once again altered its stance on the Ukrainian issue, shifting focus from military support for Kyiv toward seeking a compromise with Moscow. This shift manifested not only in the American leader’s public remarks but also in concrete actions, including the refusal to supply long-range Tomahawk missiles, pressure on Zelenskyy to make territorial concessions, and the organization of direct negotiations with Russian President Vladimir Putin without prior consultation with the Ukrainian side. According to reports from several Western media outlets, during the October 17 meeting, Trump explicitly urged Zelenskyy to accept Moscow’s terms and warned that otherwise Ukraine would be “destroyed.” It was reported that the U.S. president insisted on handing over the entire Donbas region to Russia, citing its “predominantly Russian-speaking” character, and disregarded frontline maps, instead proposing to “freeze” the current situation as the basis for a ceasefire. Although the Ukrainian delegation reportedly managed to convince Trump to agree to a frontline freeze without formally recognizing Russian control over the territories, the atmosphere of the talks was described as “tense” and even “chaotic.”

Particular attention was drawn to the actions and statements of Trump’s inner circle. According to The Washington Post, U.S. Special Presidential Envoy Steve Witkoff, during the White House meeting, insisted that Ukrainian forces withdraw from Donbas, citing provisions of the Russian Constitution. This statement shocked Kyiv, as it effectively amounted to recognition of the legitimacy of Russia’s territorial claims. Meanwhile, U.S. Vice President J. Vance, speaking publicly, emphasized that any decisions on arms deliveries, including Tomahawks, would be made based on U.S. national security interests rather than Ukraine’s needs. Taken together, these positions created the impression that Washington was deliberately lowering the stakes in the Ukrainian conflict and seeking a swift end to the war, even at the cost of Ukrainian territorial losses.

A critically important element of Trump’s new strategy was his pursuit of personal diplomacy with Putin. As early as October 16, a phone call took place between the U.S. and Russian presidents, during which, according to American sources, Putin demanded Ukraine’s complete renunciation of Donbas as a condition for a ceasefire. Rather than reject this demand, Trump apparently accepted it as a starting point for negotiations. Shortly thereafter, plans emerged for a personal Trump–Putin summit in Budapest, causing concern in European capitals and Kyiv, as the decision on the summit was made without consulting Ukraine. This approach demonstrated clear disregard for Kyiv’s interests and confirmed fears that, for Trump, Ukraine was merely a tool in a broader game with Moscow, not a sovereign partner whose interests deserved protection.