What do the London talks mean for Ukraine amid mounting U.S. pressure?

According to the Resurgam Telegram channel, the true value of this event was not in the announced support but in determining a unified stance ahead of the March 6 summit, which will define tactical steps, including support programs:

• The London meeting was about setting a strategic direction, which was achieved.
• The March 6 summit in Paris will present specific plans, expected to receive support from most EU nations.

“A significant development will be the establishment of a dedicated fund for military aid to Ukraine, likely formed by individual contributions from various countries. This structure will prevent Hungary from obstructing the initiative,” the author notes.

Baltic states’ absence – no conspiracy, just protocol issues

Regarding the Baltic states, Resurgam dismisses conspiracy theories and attributes their exclusion to protocol oversight. Given the urgency of the summit and Keir Starmer’s concurrent visit to Washington, some diplomatic missteps have likely occurred. However, London (specifically Starmer) has since apologized to the omitted countries and will personally follow up with them.

U.S. reaction – a desperate attempt at pressure

“The United States’ recent behavior — including social media outbursts from high-level officials — resembles that of a petulant child lashing out when confronted,” the author compares. This conduct suggests not just an effort to pressure Ukraine but also internal discomfort within the White House. The administration faces a dilemma: it cannot back down without appearing to yield to Ukraine and the EU, yet following through on its threats could bring even greater complications.

Resurgam draws a sharp analogy in the light of recent comparison of Ukraine to an “ex-girlfriend” by U.S. National Security Advisor Mike Waltz:

“The United States is like an ex-partner who has long engaged in abusive and cheating behavior (secret negotiations with Moscow). When caught, and when the victim (Ukraine) finally sets boundaries, the result is hysteria. However, the ex cannot carry out most of his threats, as even his own mother (voters) believes he has overstepped, and his friends (allies) disapprove of his behavior. So, between emotional outbursts about blocking and destroying everything, he occasionally realizes the consequences of such actions.”

Media narratives about a supposed "closure" and similar developments should be understood as pressure tactics — attempts to intimidate Ukraine.

“Can the U.S. act on these threats? Possibly. But will they? That is far from certain, as doing so risks damaging its own credibility,” the author adds. The U.S. foreign policy framework relies on maintaining an image of trust, and domestic criticism could follow any drastic actions.

In this scenario, the best outcome for the "abusive ex" (the White House) would be for the victim (Ukraine) to apologize, allowing the U.S. to reframe the situation: “See? It wasn’t me; I was provoked.”

Currently, Ukraine finds itself in a difficult position — uncertain and wary of the next steps.

 However, as soon as common allies (the EU and others) begin implementing tangible support measures on March 6, the White House’s position will further deteriorate, and its threats will become less viable.

Therefore, it is critical for the White House that Ukraine apologizes before the EU finalizes new support plans in March, which would bolster Ukraine’s resilience against any betrayal.

“In conflict resolution theory, conflict is sometimes an inevitable mechanism for addressing disputes. The key lies in carefully planning resources and defining the objectives to be achieved under these circumstances,” the author concludes.