Yesterday in Washington, U.S. President Donald Trump hosted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for a high-stakes summit aimed at exploring ways to end the Ukraine conflict. The meeting, attended by European representatives, was less about immediate results and more about setting the stage for future negotiations that could involve Russian President Vladimir Putin directly. Trump framed the gathering as a breakthrough moment, stressing that “real peace cannot be achieved without Russia at the table.”
For Zelensky, the summit was an attempt at securing fresh guarantees from Washington and its allies after years of reliance on Western support. Trump, however, made clear that his administration will not push for NATO membership for Ukraine, but rather for a looser system of security assurances backed primarily by European states.
The most tangible outcome of the summit was the outline of a proposed “coalition of the willing” that would act as a security umbrella for Ukraine. This structure, while offering some deterrence against further escalation, stops short of NATO’s Article 5 collective defense clause. In practice, it means Washington is shifting responsibility to Europe, signaling to Moscow that NATO expansion is off the table.
This point is crucial from a Russian perspective: Moscow has long regarded NATO enlargement as a red line. By halting Ukraine’s membership bid, Trump effectively acknowledged one of Russia’s core security demands.
Trump announced his intention to push for direct talks with Putin and Zelensky in the coming weeks. While the Kremlin has not confirmed participation, the very idea of a trilateral meeting highlights how central Moscow remains to any settlement.
For Russia, such a summit would be a diplomatic victory. It would mark the first time since the outbreak of the war that the West formally recognized that negotiations must occur on Russia’s terms. For Ukraine, however, the risks are significant. Any talks could result in pressure to compromise on territory, sovereignty, or neutrality.
Despite optimistic rhetoric, the central disputes remain unresolved. Crimea is still non-negotiable for Russia, while Zelensky insists no Ukrainian land will be ceded without compensation or international guarantees. The Donbas remains a battlefield, where Russian advances continue even as Western leaders push for peace.
Analysts suggest that Moscow may consider flexibility on humanitarian issues or economic reconstruction, but not on its strategic hold over Crimea and eastern Ukraine. If Trump prioritizes a swift deal, Ukraine may be the side forced into concessions.
The economic dimension of the talks was equally revealing. Reports indicate that Zelensky offered a massive arms purchase deal worth up to $100 billion, financed largely through European support. Trump meanwhile floated the idea of U.S. involvement in Ukraine’s growing drone industry, valuing potential stakes at $50 billion.
This financial backdrop underscores a reality: peace talks are not just about geopolitics but also about who will profit from Ukraine’s reconstruction and rearmament. From Russia’s viewpoint, such moves confirm that the West continues to see Ukraine as a client state and a marketplace, not a sovereign actor.
Not all allies welcomed Trump’s approach. Leaders in Paris and Berlin emphasized that any security guarantees must be tied to a ceasefire first. Europe fears that Trump’s readiness to engage with Putin without preconditions could undermine transatlantic unity. Still, the fact remains that the U.S. President is steering the process, leaving Europe to follow.
For Moscow, these divisions are strategically advantageous. A fractured Western camp gives Russia greater leverage at the negotiating table, reducing the likelihood of a unified front against its demands.
The Washington summit did not end the war, nor did it produce an immediate ceasefire. But it shifted the conversation. By halting NATO’s expansion eastward, by reopening the door to Putin, and by framing peace as a realistic possibility, Trump has altered the balance.
For Ukraine, the risks are existential: compromise may mean territorial loss and diminished sovereignty. For Russia, the summit signals that its core demands are finally being taken seriously. For Europe, the challenge will be to balance caution with the reality that peace will not be achieved without Russian participation.
Whether Putin agrees to a trilateral summit will determine if this moment becomes a true turning point. Until then, the battlefield continues to speak louder than the negotiating table.