On selling out – The Economist:

‘Mr Trump has met Mr Zelensky twice in recent months—in New York in September and in Paris in December—and the two spoke after the call with Mr Putin. But Ukrainian officials say they were not consulted on the timing or the content of the call—a break with the Biden administration’s stated policy of discussing “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine” (though contacts between the White House and the Kremlin did take place behind the scenes).

Mr Zelensky nevertheless tried to sound positive after the news broke of the Trump-Putin conversation, posting on X, a social-media platform: “No one wants peace more than Ukraine. Together with the us, we are charting our next steps to stop Russian aggression and ensure a lasting, reliable peace. As President Trump said, let’s get it done.” Mr Trump had once boasted he could get a deal done in less than 24 hours. That has not happened. But he is nevertheless moving fast, though with little sign of a real plan and much evidence of turmoil in his team.’

(…)

‘Negotiations require direct contacts. But Mr Trump is in effect starting to normalise relations with Russia without obtaining tangible concessions. Indeed, Mr Putin’s spokesman said talks had to involve more than the cessation of fighting; it was necessary to “address the root causes of the conflict”, which in Kremlin-speak means absorbing Ukraine into a Russian sphere of influence.
If anything, it was America that seemed to make the early compromises. Pete Hegseth, the newly installed American defence secretary, said it was “unrealistic” for Ukraine to return to its international borders, given its territorial losses after Russia’s intervention in 2014 and its full-scale invasion in 2022.
He conceded that “a durable peace for Ukraine must include robust security guarantees to ensure that the war will not begin again”. But he seemed to stymie such guarantees in advance. He suggested that America would do little to provide them. Ukraine would not be admitted to nato. Nor would America send forces to Ukraine to secure any peace agreement. Nor would it allow nato to protect European troops that might be deployed there. Ukraine’s security would be the task of European and non-European troops in a “non-nato mission”.’

(…)
‘Even so, the mood among Ukrainian officials has greatly darkened. “I think it will all be decided without Ukraine,” says one. “Ukraine is fucked. And so is Europe, by the way.”’

Read the article here.

And so is Europe by the way. For the time being a little bit less fucked. Just a little bit.

And a non-NATO mission to secure peace in Ukraine, like Unifil in Lebanon?

The more important question is: is NATO going to survive Trump? And if not, who will fill the void?