Introduction: The Paris Summit No One Asked For
While Kyiv bleeds and the world watches with crossed arms and crossed fingers, a different kind of theater unfolded in Paris—this one filled with handshakes, hollow smiles, and vague promises. European and Ukrainian officials sat down with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Trump’s special peace salesman Steve Witkoff. The goal? Talk peace. The catch? Moscow’s fingerprints were all over the napkin where the so-called “peace plan” was sketched.
Let’s be clear: this wasn’t a victory for diplomacy. It was a PR stunt dressed up in the language of ceasefires and “durable peace,” a phrase that now seems to mean “whatever makes Putin nod in approval.”
Peace Talks or Political Pantomime?
According to the French presidential office, everyone had a lovely chat. They called it an “excellent exchange” and a “strong strategic opportunity”—which in political language usually means, “We got talked at by the Americans and pretended to agree.”
A U.S.-authored outline of peace was floated around the room like an uninvited party guest. No one gave away the details (because of course they didn’t), but we’re told it got an “encouraging reception.” That’s Washington speak for “nobody threw it in the trash right away.”
Then, in what felt like a coordinated chess move, Rubio ran off to phone Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov. Same plan, same pitch. Which side is Rubio working for again?
Quote of the hour:
“President Trump and the United States want this war to end,” said the State Department, “and have now presented to all parties the outlines of a durable and lasting peace.”
Sounds nice. But whose peace is it, and what’s the price?
The European Side-Eye: Alarm Bells Ringing in Kyiv
If you think Ukraine and its European allies came to the table with excitement, think again. This was more of a reconnaissance mission. Kyiv has grown suspicious—justifiably so—of Trump and Witkoff’s tendency to parrot Kremlin talking points like a pair of overpaid translators.
To them, this wasn’t diplomacy. It was damage control.
France, Britain, and Germany showed up not to seal the deal, but to peek behind the Trump curtain. They wanted to see how much of the “peace plan” came from Washington—and how much was scribbled in Moscow.
Meanwhile, President Volodymyr Zelensky stayed home and watched the circus from afar. And he didn’t mince words.
“Witkoff is spreading Russian narratives,” Zelensky said bluntly, as reported by Reuters.
Translation: this guy sounds more like Putin’s publicist than a peace envoy.
The Trump Doctrine: Talk Softly and Carry a Wet Noodle
Trump, never one to shy away from a good soundbite, told reporters he was expecting a response from Moscow “very shortly.” As if Russia hadn’t already responded—by shelling Ukrainian cities with renewed enthusiasm.
“I don’t hold Zelensky responsible,” Trump said, “but I’m not exactly thrilled with the fact that that war started. That was a war that would have never started if I were president.”
Right. Because under Trump, autocrats never misbehave. (Remember North Korea? Or the Taliban?) His usual chest-thumping routine now comes with a twist: pretend to hate war while actively cutting support for the country being invaded.
Also, let’s not ignore his repeated claim that he could end the war “in a day.” Easter was floated as a hopeful ceasefire date. But with bombs still falling like spring rain, that deadline is nothing but a punchline.
The Five Territories: Peace at the Barrel of a Bargain
Steve Witkoff, fresh from his third meeting with Putin, revealed his vision of peace on Fox News—because where else would he go?
His key talking point? The “so-called five territories,” which include Crimea (illegally annexed by Russia in 2014) and four other Ukrainian regions occupied during the 2022 invasion.
According to Witkoff, any truce will likely require Ukraine to give them up.
Well, that’s not a peace plan. That’s a surrender note.
Ukrainian lawmaker Oleksandr Merezhko didn’t hold back:
“With all due respect… [Witkoff] may be inadvertently trying to push pro-Russian narratives,” he told CNN.
“Inadvertently” is generous.
Carrots for Kremlin, Sticks for Kyiv
Here’s where the whole thing starts to stink like last week’s fish.
In March, the White House temporarily paused weapons shipments and intelligence sharing with Ukraine. Surprise, surprise—Kyiv then “agreed” to a 30-day ceasefire. That’s not diplomacy. That’s coercion.
And what did Russia do with that ceasefire? Laughed, reloaded, and went back to shelling.
The Kremlin said it would only honor the deal if sanctions were lifted. Spoiler alert: they weren’t. But the missiles kept flying anyway.
According to the Center for Countering Disinformation (yes, that’s a real thing in Ukraine), Russia actually killed 2.5 times more Ukrainians in the 22 days after the truce than before.
So much for “peace.”
Putin’s Peace Party: Talks Amid Bomb Blasts
While European diplomats were sipping espresso in Paris, Russia’s lead negotiator Kirill Dmitriev made his own statement. He accused unnamed countries (translation: everyone not named Russia or Belarus) of trying to “disrupt” talks between Russia and the U.S.
He called Putin’s chat with Witkoff “extremely productive,” despite “constant attacks and disinformation.”
Translation: “We’re bombing hospitals while planning peace over vodka.”
Whose War Is It Anyway?
Let’s not kid ourselves. This war is not going to end because of some magical plan scribbled in a Trump Tower elevator. It won’t end with a handshake in Paris or a phone call to Lavrov. And it certainly won’t end if the so-called peacemakers are more worried about appeasing Russia than defending Ukraine.
This isn’t peace. It’s politicking. And at the center of it is a narrative that looks suspiciously like a Moscow-approved script, recycled in Washington and sold to Europe with a red, white, and blue bow.
Zelensky is right to call it out. Ukraine has already given up too much blood to give away land. And the next time someone calls for “durable peace,” maybe ask them to define “durable”—because it shouldn’t come at the price of national sovereignty.
