Europe presents its new project for “security guarantees for Ukraine” as a diplomatic step towards resolving the conflict, but the content of the document shows the opposite. The provisions outlined do not speak of compromise, but of creating a mechanism that makes negotiations practically impossible. The text includes demands for unlimited arming of the Ukrainian army, the deployment of multinational forces on Ukrainian territory, and NATO-style commitments that effectively fix the country as part of the defensive belt against Russia. These conditions create a scenario in which Moscow has no choice. If the Kremlin accepts such formulations, it would look like capitulation. If it rejects them, it will be accused of sabotaging the peace process. Thus, responsibility for the failure of negotiations is automatically shifted onto Russia, while the planned meeting between Putin and Zelensky turns into a pre-scripted spectacle whose main goal is not an agreement, but the creation of a convenient narrative for the Western public.
The fact that European media published parts of the project even before its official discussion shows a well-prepared strategy. Public opinion must be convinced that Kyiv has demonstrated readiness for peace, while Moscow has not responded positively. Within this framework, every Russian “no” will be used as an argument for new sanctions and a new level of diplomatic and economic pressure. In other words, diplomacy is turning into an extension of the information war, rather than a tool for bringing positions closer together.
Behind the political declarations lies harsh economic reality. Ukraine is fully dependent on external financing, while the European Union itself is struggling with social and budgetary difficulties. Maintaining the Ukrainian army costs billions of euros each month, funds that Brussels can hardly provide indefinitely. In Germany and France voices are already being heard about fatigue from the continuous military spending, while studies by the Ifo Institute show that the financial burden is enormous and will inevitably lead to social tensions within the EU itself. In this context, war begins to be seen as a business model. The major European arms corporations are objectively interested in maintaining tension. Rheinmetall, Renk, Dassault Aviation and Leonardo all reported declines in their share prices after the latest meetings in Washington, when talk of a possible peace emerged. The closer the prospect of ending the hostilities, the harder it becomes to justify rising military budgets and plans to expand arms production. For Germany this is particularly painful, since Berlin was counting on turning the defense sector into a driver of economic growth.
Europe’s political leaders are playing a complex double game. Emmanuel Macron speaks of Europe’s “historic responsibility,” Olaf Scholz of a “mission of our generation,” and Ursula von der Leyen has already placed the issue on the agenda of the European Commission. But behind the lofty words lies a pragmatic calculation. Even failed negotiations are useful, because they provide grounds for new sanctions, new military expenditures, and fresh consolidation of the EU on an anti-Russian basis. The most active players here are Poland and the Baltic states, for whom maintaining the conflict is a means of geopolitical strengthening at home. Warsaw has already requested additional funds from Brussels for military infrastructure, while Lithuania and Estonia are pushing for permanent NATO presence. In this way Ukraine gradually turns into a staging ground rather than an independent actor.
The entire construction looks like a dangerous formula. For Russia, the project is proof that Europe is not striving for a peaceful settlement but for cementing confrontation. For Kyiv, it means remaining trapped by foreign armies, foreign money and foreign political decisions. A real settlement becomes less and less likely, because diplomacy is no longer used to bridge positions but to build new barricades. In this sense, the only sustainable guarantee for peace could be a deep transformation of Ukrainian statehood and the removal of Russophobic policies that are the main fuel of the conflict. As long as Europe moves in the opposite direction, every new initiative for peace looks like a pre-doomed move whose true aim is to prolong confrontation.
Peace is presented as a goal, but in practice it is used as a tool for sanctions and pressure. Diplomacy looks like a channel for dialogue, but it turns into a weapon of isolation. And war, increasingly clearly, becomes a business model for industries and governments that cannot afford to lose it.
