Trump/Zelenskyy Meeting More of the Same

The latest meeting between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy produced a familiar blend of optimism, ambiguity, and frustration. Trump emerged from the talks declaring that the discussions have gone “very well” and that a peace agreement is “closer” — though he acknowledged the presence of “thorny issues” still to be resolved.

As has become routine in these diplomatic exchanges, the public was left with only fragments of substance. The one concrete takeaway appears to be a broad understanding that Ukraine must receive some form of security guarantee against future Russian aggression. Beyond that, the sticking points appear to involve territorial questions.

The post-meeting report offers nothing new. Trump’s statements of optimism mimic comments made after several previous meetings with either Zelenskyy or Vladimir Putin. Each time, the public hears the same hopeful language … progress is being made … peace is within reach … the sides are closer than ever. And each time, the optimism dissolves when Russia rejects ceasefire proposals or introduces new unacceptable demands. The cycle has become predictable, and the latest meeting fits neatly into that pattern.

The central problem, as critics of Trump’s approach argue, is that the United States continues to act as though it must serve as a neutral broker—or even worse, a Putin partisan — rather than a committed Ukrainian ally. 

Ukraine is fighting a defensive war against an invading power. Yet Trump’s diplomatic posture repeatedly suggests that Washington should mediate between the aggressor and the victim – with too much sympathy for the aggressor. This framing has shaped the negotiations from the beginning of Trump’s second term, and it has consistently undermined Ukraine’s position.

The argument that the conflict could reach a just conclusion if the United States abandoned the middleman role is not new, but it has gained traction as the war drags on –and as Trump’s policy of acquiescence to Putin fails to bring positive results. The logic is straightforward. Russia has shown no willingness to accept ceasefire terms that preserve Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Every time the United States and Ukraine have agreed on a framework, Russia has rejected it. The only leverage capable of altering Moscow’s calculus is overwhelming military and diplomatic pressure — pressure that only the United States can marshal. Instead, Trump has repeatedly signaled a desire to maintain a relationship with Putin, a stance that the world sees as partiality toward Moscow.

This perceived partiality has had consequences. Trump entered his second term insisting he could end the war quickly, portraying himself as uniquely capable of negotiating with Putin. But rather than delivering a breakthrough, he has found himself repeatedly outmaneuvered. Each round of talks ends with Russia refusing to compromise, Ukraine left in limbo, and Trump forced to explain why progress remains elusive. The result is a diplomatic record that critics describe as a series of humiliations — not because negotiations failed, but because they were premised on the belief that Putin would act in good faith.

The latest meeting with Zelenskyy underscores this dynamic. The mention of “thorny issues” almost certainly refers to an impasse on a fundamental Russian demand — and the one area Ukraine cannot concede without sacrificing its sovereignty. If Trump continues to pressure Ukraine to accept excessive territorial losses in exchange for a ceasefire, the negotiations will remain stalled. Russia has no incentive to compromise if it believes the United States will eventually push Ukraine toward concessions. 

And any territorial concession means a total victory for Putin.  Sanctions will be lifted.  There will be no reparations for the loss of life and property.  And the fate of the thousands of kidnapped children apparently remains a non-issue.

This is why some observers now argue that the primary obstacle to a just peace is not Ukraine’s resolve or Russia’s intransigence, but Trump’s strategy itself. As long as the United States positions itself as a biased mediator rather than a defender of Ukraine, Russia can prolong the conflict indefinitely. A decisive shift — one that places the full weight of American power behind a Ukraine victory — could change the trajectory of the war. But such a shift would require Trump to abandon the belief that he can personally broker a deal with Putin by acceding to the Madman or Moscow’s demands.

The latest meeting’s outcome, then, is less a sign of progress than a reminder of the limitations of Trump’s approach. Without a fundamental change in strategy, the war will continue to grind on, with Ukraine bearing the cost and Russia exploiting the diplomatic vacuum. The promise of peace will remain just that — a promise, repeated after every meeting, never fulfilled.  And the prospect of a just peace is off the table.

Because of Trump’s pro-Russian policy, the war will continue until Putin gets what he wants – land and a regime change in Kyiv.

So, there ‘tis.