The initiative is in Europe. What was discussed in London?

They welcomed Zelensky, who returned from the White House disheartened, with open arms in London. At a time when US aid is coming to a halt, Europe has taken the initiative to support Ukraine. Political scientists Kamoliddin Rabbimov, Muxtor Nazirov, and Bektosh Berdiyev commented on the diplomatic front of the Russia-Ukraine war in "Geopolitics".

— Will the parties agree to Macron's one-month ceasefire proposal? If one side is against it, what is the reason?
Muxtor Nazirov: I think a one-month truce is currently at the proposal level; this proposal envisions a temporary transition period leading to long-term peace. European countries also need to clarify the issue of maintaining peace and military support.

Zelensky has also indicated that he is aware of this issue. However, he needs to process it further, meaning it is still at the proposal level. In my opinion, Trump needs similar proposals that clearly show US interests and present Europe's capabilities.

If Ukraine enters negotiations, it must be in a strong position; otherwise, the negotiations will take place at one side's advantage.

Kamoliddin Rabbimov: A question arises about the strategy or purpose of the peace. There have been many wars in human history. Wars do not end abruptly. Currently, the main goal of a one-month truce is to stop the war at the current border point, with both sides refraining from firing at each other. This is called freezing the situation before achieving full peace. That is, during this month, we will develop an agreement on this side, and until then, you all should refrain from fighting.

However, there are still very contentious issues on the agenda. One of the main issues is the border issue.

In addition, there are two issues here: if one side does not achieve consensus within its internal society, the war will restart after a certain period. For example, during World War II, Germany considered itself defeated and sought revenge against the remaining states, preparing for a long time. Similarly, Russia's and Putin's concern is that if the remaining part of Ukraine joins NATO, they say, "We do not want such peace." One of the conditions set by the Kremlin is that Ukraine must remain a neutral state.

Russia is proposing several untenable conditions, namely not returning the occupied territories to Ukraine. Secondly, there are territories included in the constitution, four regions, and they will not agree until they are handed over to Russia. Thirdly, Ukraine should not join NATO, which would be a complete historical capitulation for Ukraine. However, the issue of NATO membership, in my opinion, may be raised after Putin leaves power. Russia knows this well, which is why Putin wants to formalize the issue of occupied territories now. That is, Ukraine's and Russia's views on the border fundamentally differ.

— Ursula von der Leyen raised the necessity of Europe's rearmament. Can the EU achieve a modern military industry without the US?
Bektosh Berdiyev: To put it bluntly, yes, it can achieve it, but it will take time because Europe has sufficient resources. Europe has enough military technology, engineering, and industry. It will only take time to develop and prepare the necessary reserves, and this time will certainly not be just one day, one month, one year, or five years; it may take even longer. Currently, the main weapon systems in the NATO system are produced in the US. However, various types of aircraft and missiles are being produced in countries like Germany, France, and Italy.

Thus, we can say that today's Europe has a significant military-technical and scientific potential, as well as financial potential. Most importantly, there is the will, and using this will, today Europe can certainly view this as an opportunity and create its own security system. But let’s acknowledge the other side: how many years will Trump remain in power and in what condition will he leave? Will the next administration be able to reconnect the severed ties between the US and Europe? How will relations between the United States and Europe unfold?!

Muxtor Nazirov: For Europe, external pressures are strong, and there is a lack of independent action capability and current issues related to NATO. The main article, if it were not for the fifth article, there would be no need for this organization. Because the last independent military operation was carried out during the Yugoslavia operation.

Recently, NATO has increasingly formed as a partner or assistant of the US in external operations. In terms of arms production, most of the weapons we often mention still have US components. During this time, Europe and the US have become so integrated in military industry matters that it is difficult to produce any specific product separately. The US has an advantage in this regard.

The next issue is that Europe currently has a significant historical opportunity to take responsibility for its security. Perhaps if there is a systematic effort, it can be realized. Currently, it also aligns with US interests. Thirdly, our observations in European countries show that there is a sentiment that every four years, changes in American policy put their foreign policies at great risk. Political risks are increasing.

This is not the policy of the Cold War, where regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats come, the overall line does not change, but approaches may change. During Trump's era, alongside this overall line, fundamental changes are also occurring. European countries can prepare themselves for this, realizing that they can achieve this by forming more defense industries and security institutions that can operate parallel to NATO, not as an alternative to it.

— If European peacekeeping forces enter the region without US participation, how will Russia respond?
Kamoliddin Rabbimov: Russia has so far expressed its position on this issue through Foreign Minister Lavrov. That is, in any form, NATO member states should not participate in Ukraine.

What does this mean? If NATO member states send their military or peacekeeping forces not in the name of NATO but in the name of their national army or state, they say we will not accept this. If there are states that are not NATO members, they may participate.

For example, such situations have occurred many times in history; in Africa and some Asian countries, neutral states have operated peacekeeping forces under the UN flag. In Russia's view, if peacekeeping forces come from neutral states, that is, states that are not members of the European Union and not part of the American command, they are in a position to say we will consider this. That is, Russia is looking for opportunities to expand its borders as much as possible.

The meeting at the White House showed that Zelensky faced complete failure.

Some senators close to Trump and prominent politicians are saying: it is impossible to reach an agreement with Zelensky, it is impossible to maintain Ukrainian statehood with Zelensky, pushing an agenda forward. It will take a long time to remove Zelensky from the game, and elections are necessary for that. Conducting elections in the context of war is complicated; let’s say if March has begun, for elections to take place in September or October, Ukraine must remain in a turbulent state for that long. That is, there is significant pressure on Ukrainian statehood, and in this context, Russia's agenda is clear: to prolong the possibilities of war and exert additional pressure on Ukraine. Because Russia is confident in itself, the reason being that America has exited the game.