Vance and Lammy convene Ukraine talks as Trump-Putin summit looms

US vice-president JD Vance and UK foreign secretary David Lammy convened a meeting of Ukrainian and European national security advisers at Chevening, the foreign secretary's official Kent residence, on Saturday 9 August. The talks, called at Washington's request, came six days before Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are due to sit down in Alaska for a summit that could reshape the war in Ukraine. Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky has made clear he will not accept territorial concessions, while Trump has signalled that land swaps may be necessary to end the conflict.

The Chevening meeting and who attended

Rustem Umerov, secretary of Ukraine's National Security and Defence Council, and Andriy Yermak, head of Zelensky's office, represented Kyiv. They were joined by officials from the UK, US, European Union, France, Germany, Italy, Finland and NATO. Keir Starmer, the UK prime minister, spoke with Zelensky by phone before the meeting and described it as a "vital forum" to discuss progress towards peace. Lammy said afterwards that the "UK's support for Ukraine remains ironclad as we continue working towards a just and lasting peace".

The gathering at Chevening was notable for what it was not: a formal negotiating session with Russian participation. Instead it served as a coordination exercise among Ukraine's partners before the Trump-Putin summit, an attempt to align positions and ensure Kyiv's red lines are understood in Washington. Several European capitals have been uneasy for months about the prospect of a US-Russia bilateral deal that sidelines Ukraine and the continent most directly affected by the war's outcome.

Trump's territorial calculus

Trump's public comments in the days before the Chevening meeting hardened European anxiety. Speaking on Friday 8 August, he said there "will be some swapping of territories, to the betterment of both". He added: "You're looking at territory that's been fought over for three and a half years, a lot of Russians have died. A lot of Ukrainians have died." The reference to 3.5 years dates the full-scale invasion to February 2022. Trump's framing treats territory as a ledger item, a perspective that aligns with his longstanding transactional approach to foreign policy but cuts across the principle that borders cannot be changed by force, a principle the European signatories reaffirmed on Saturday night.

Russia has consistently demanded Ukrainian recognition of Russian sovereignty over Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions, along with demilitarisation and a binding commitment to abandon NATO aspirations. Trump's position has converged on the territorial element: Ukraine sacrifices land for peace. The difference is that Moscow seeks formal recognition; Trump appears to favour a de facto freeze that stops the fighting without resolving the legal status of occupied areas.

Zelensky's red lines

Zelensky has been careful not to criticise Trump directly, aware of Ukraine's dependence on US military and financial support. But his public statements leave no ambiguity. Early on Saturday he posted on Telegram: "Ukrainians will not give their land to the occupier." In his evening address he said the Chevening meeting had been constructive and reiterated: "The path to peace for Ukraine should be determined together and only together with Ukraine, this is key principle." The phrasing, "only together with Ukraine", is a direct rebuttal of any deal struck in Alaska without Ukrainian participation.

Ukraine's negotiating position has been consistent since the Istanbul talks of March 2022 collapsed: restoration of 1991 borders, security guarantees, and accountability for war crimes. Kyiv has shown flexibility on the sequencing of NATO membership but not on sovereignty. The Chevening meeting allowed Umerov and Yermak to remind European partners that any agreement violating those principles would lack legitimacy and durability, a point Zelensky reinforced by noting that a peace "will not collapse because of Moscow's wishes" only if Ukraine is at the table.

European unity tested

Late on Saturday, the leaders of Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Finland and European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen issued a joint statement. "The path to peace in Ukraine cannot be decided without Ukraine," they wrote. "Ukraine has the freedom of choice over its own destiny." They added that "international borders must not be changed by force" and pledged continued diplomatic, military and financial support. The statement was a coordinated pushback against the prospect of an Alaska deal that excludes Kyiv and rewrites borders.

Emmanuel Macron went further in a post on X, warning that "Europeans will also necessarily be part of the solution, as their own security is at stake." The French president has been the most vocal European advocate for strategic autonomy and for a European security architecture that does not depend solely on US guarantees. His intervention signals that Paris will not accept a settlement imposed from Washington and Moscow, particularly one that leaves European forces to police a fragile ceasefire without a say in its terms.

The joint statement also serves a domestic purpose. Governments in Warsaw, Helsinki, London and Berlin need to demonstrate to their electorates that support for Ukraine is not wavering, even as the war enters its fourth year and fatigue sets in. The inclusion of Poland and Finland, the two EU members with the longest land borders with Russia, underscores that the frontline states see their own security as inseparable from Ukraine's.

The missed deadline and its implications

On Friday 8 August, a deadline set by Trump for Russia to agree to a ceasefire or face additional sanctions passed without visible consequences. The White House has not explained why the threat was not executed, though a senior official told CBS News that planning for the Alaska summit remains fluid and that Zelensky could still be involved "in some way". The missed deadline weakens US leverage. If Putin calculates that Trump's deadlines are negotiable, he has little incentive to offer concessions before the summit. The episode also raises questions about the coherence of US policy: is the goal a ceasefire at any price, or a settlement that deters future aggression?

European officials privately acknowledge that the Chevening meeting was partly an exercise in expectation management. They do not expect the Alaska summit to produce a comprehensive peace. The best realistic outcome, in their view, is a framework agreement that commits both sides to further talks with Ukrainian and European participation. The worst is a bilateral understanding that freezes the front lines, legitimises Russian territorial gains, and leaves Ukraine facing a choice between accepting a bad deal or losing US support.

What Ukrainians on the ground expect

Reporting from Ukraine suggests a population exhausted by 3.5 years of war, drone attacks and missile strikes. Soldiers and civilians alike express a strong desire for peace. But there is little appetite for a settlement that cedes territory or excludes Kyiv from the negotiations. The mood is not capitulation; it is resignation that the diplomatic track may move faster than the military reality, and that the next phase of the war will be fought in meeting rooms as much as on the front lines.