Zelenskyy-Trump. Start of long talks with no ceasefire
The meeting of the U.S. and Ukrainian presidents took place against a backdrop of heavy criticism in the American media over the Alaska talks. In fact, this pressure was likely the main reason Trump decided to slow down his blitzkrieg
1. It appears the worst-case scenario — where U.S. arms sales would be cut off if Ukraine refused to give up Donbas — has been avoided, or at least postponed. Overall, the main outcome of the meeting is the first outline of a future security agreement.
2. Russia clearly failed to achieve its main goal: it could not derail the negotiations through Ukraine. Credit here also goes to the American press, which presented a united front (from Democratic to pro-Trump outlets) against what happened in Alaska. While the Ukrainian issue may not dominate U.S. domestic politics, it was definitely a cold shower for Trump.
3. The Zelenskyy-Putin meeting remains uncertain, despite Trump’s statement. So far, the only signal from Russia is Ushakov’s comment that the level of Ukraine-Russia talks could be elevated. For Putin, meeting Zelenskyy would undermine one of his main “trump cards” — his claim that Zelenskyy is illegitimate, which he reserves like a magician’s trick to use at the right moment.
4. Putin’s likely strategy remains the same: flatter Trump and stall for time. In Alaska, he gained the most important thing: the chance to negotiate without a ceasefire. He can’t play this game forever, but he can drag it out for some time without trouble. This is the main negative result of Alaska, later “confirmed” by the Washington meeting.
5. Against this backdrop, it’s worth noting that Trump’s original blitzkrieg strategy is losing relevance. It seems he may be ready to slow down for now.
We often wrongly think he acts for the Nobel Prize. For him, the prize is just icing on the cake to stroke his ego. Elections matter far more than the Nobel (and they will start in October 2025 and end only in November 2026).
6. Rubio’s comment that countries from other continents could serve as security guarantors remains unclear. It would be significant if it implies involving China (as Russia suggested after Alaska). If so, the war in Ukraine could become part of U.S.-China discussions, with the U.S. effectively acknowledging that Russia might act as a kind of “mediator” in certain aspects of Washington-Beijing relations, particularly regarding the Northern Sea Route and Arctic development.
7. Back to the possible Zelenskyy-Putin meeting: its chances of success are very slim, because this is where territories will be discussed. Without external pressure, this issue cannot be resolved bilaterally. The meeting is important, though, because Ukraine could outline the idea of demarcation along the front line, putting the question of peace, in the eyes of the world, on Putin personally. At the same time, even if the meeting happens, it looks like it won’t deliver peace, at least not in the short term.
8. I still believe the most likely scenario is peace agreements emerging within Washington-Beijing talks, and they probably won’t appear before the end of this year (a more realistic timeline is spring–winter 2026).
About the author: Vadym Denysenko, political scientist.
The editorial team does not always share the opinions expressed by the blog authors.
- News