Sharp Diplomacy in London, a Rewritten U.S. Strategy — and the Shadow War Beneath the Waves

By Ephraim Agbo 

The diplomatic choreography in London this week — President Volodymyr Zelensky’s hurried meetings with the leaders of Britain, France and Germany — laid bare a wrenching reality: the West is arguing not just over how to end the war in Ukraine, but over who will pay, who will lead, and what the map of Europe will look like when the fighting stops.

At the heart of the talks was a U.S.-promoted peace initiative that has already unsettled capitals and Kyiv alike. The plan’s broad contours — which reportedly include contentious provisions on territorial compromise, security architecture and a stepped-back U.S. role — have forced an uncomfortable public debate between Washington, Europe and Kyiv about what constitutes realistic diplomacy and what amounts to abandonment.

A plan, a prod, and public friction

President Donald Trump’s blunt remarks over the weekend — including impatience that Mr. Zelensky had not yet “read the proposal” — reinforced a message many European leaders privately fear: that Washington may be willing to hand the lead to Europe and Kyiv while keeping a more distanced posture.

The effect has been twofold:
• It pressures Kyiv to consider options it views as violating its red lines.
• It pushes London, Paris and Berlin toward the diplomatic front line at the exact moment Western unity is most needed.

Ukrainian negotiators, European capitals and Moscow are watching the same clock but reading very different maps. For Kyiv, sovereignty and territorial integrity remain non-negotiable absolutes. For Moscow, the war’s gains are the starting point. And for Europe, the calculus is pragmatic: balancing military support and reconstruction costs with domestic politics and public fatigue.

A new American playbook — and why it matters

Adding weight to the diplomatic turbulence is the White House’s newly published National Security Strategy (NSS). The document marks a striking shift:
• A softer rhetorical posture toward Moscow.
• Skepticism about further NATO enlargement.
• Sharp criticism of European migration and political trends.

The language has alarmed Brussels — and emboldened Moscow. Russia has welcomed parts of the NSS as aligning with its preferred framing of European security. The effect is predictable: the U.S. signals selective engagement, Europe feels pressed to act, and Russia reads opportunity in Western divergence.

Europe’s strategic fork in the road

Europe now faces a defining choice:
Lead — and assume the military, financial and political burden of shaping a settlement;
or
Step back — and risk a transactional framework that leaves Ukraine exposed and cedes leverage to Washington and Moscow.

London, Paris and Berlin are now wrestling with that divergence in real time. Their decisions will shape not only the fate of Ukraine but the structural future of European security.

The war’s shadow: a new front beneath the waves

Beyond the diplomacy, another front is emerging — silent, technical and dangerous.

Britain has moved quickly to reinforce the security of undersea cables and pipelines that connect the UK and EU to global data and energy networks. The Royal Navy’s Atlantic Bastion programme integrates warships, surveillance aircraft and autonomous underwater drones to detect and deter intrusions.

Recent sightings of Russian-linked survey vessels near key seabed crossings have heightened concerns. Undersea infrastructure — once an afterthought — is now a central battleground in modern strategic competition.

The UK’s deployment of long-range underwater gliders and autonomous patrol vessels reflects a recognition that the war’s shadow stretches far beyond eastern Ukraine. It reaches into the infrastructure that powers Europe’s economies and democracies.

What this means for Kyiv — and for Europe

Diplomatic friction, an American strategic pivot and a militarising seabed together create a high-stakes environment for Ukraine. The outcome of today’s decisions will determine whether Kyiv negotiates from strength or from vulnerability.

If Europe steps up, it must back words with security guarantees, industrial capacity and reconstruction finance. If not, the West risks endorsing a settlement that freezes in place the consequences of aggression.