The four-way arithmetic of Trump-Zelenskyy meet

All eyes are on the White House as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy arrives flanked by a powerful coalition of European leaders to meet US President Donald Trump. Together, they present a unified front to Trump, whose recent meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska has reignited debate over the terms of peace in Ukraine. The talks could mark a turning point or entrench divides further. At the center of it all is a critical question: whose vision of peace will shape Ukraine’s future?

The four-way arithmetic between Trump, Putin, Zelenskyy and European leaders involves a complex interplay of what each of the four stakeholders wants. Trump seeks a rapid resolution, even if it means concessions. Putin wants a frozen conflict that locks in Russian gains and weakens NATO. Zelenskyy demands security without surrender. And a sidelined Europe wants a say and a role for itself in the post-war Ukraine security. The Monday meetings at the White House are not just peace talks but a clash of strategic visions.

Trump, the deal-maker, is in search of a quick fix
President Trump has framed the White House meetings as an opportunity to end the war immediately. His priority is to deliver peace, or at least the perception of it, on a tight timeline, ideally before the November election. In pursuit of this goal, Trump has embraced a transactional approach, signaling to both Kyiv and Moscow that he is willing to entertain compromises others may find unacceptable.

The night before the meeting, Trump seemed to put the onus on Zelenskyy to agree to concessions. “President Zelenskyy of Ukraine can end the war with Russia almost immediately, if he wants to, or he can continue to fight,” he wrote Sunday night on social media. “Remember how it started. No getting back Obama given Crimea (12 years ago, without a shot being fired!), and NO GOING INTO NATO BY UKRAINE. Some things never change!!!”

Trump’s clearest message to Zelenskyy is to drop any ambitions of retaking Crimea and abandon Ukraine’s NATO membership bid. In exchange, the US would back a NATO-style security guarantee, a bespoke arrangement modeled on Article 5 of the NATO treaty but offered bilaterally by the US and key European allies. Such a deal would nominally protect Ukraine’s sovereignty without provoking Moscow through NATO enlargement.

This 'guarantee without membership' strategy echoes Trump’s broader foreign policy instincts which are to minimise US entanglements, project strength through deals, and sideline traditional institutions. Following his meeting with Putin in Alaska, Trump’s team has floated these security assurances as a middle path which would be enough to deter Russian aggression and also acceptable to European leaders and Zelenskyy.

But critics, especially in Europe, worry that Trump’s eagerness for a headline-grabbing peace deal could translate into concessions that reward Russian aggression and undermine international norms. His isolation of Zelenskyy and European leaders from the Alaska meeting only deepened suspicions that the US may be pursuing a separate peace at Ukraine’s expense.

Putin wants everything on his terms
Putin enters this phase of negotiations with his battlefield position relatively secure and diplomatic momentum unexpectedly on his side. At the Alaska summit, he reportedly agreed in principle to Western-backed security guarantees for Ukraine, so long as they don’t involve NATO membership or a threat to Russian-held territory.

For Putin, this marks a significant softening of tone but not of position. He remains steadfast in his demand that Kyiv recognise Russian control over the territories already won by the Russian military. Crimea, annexed in 2014, is no longer treated as a subject of negotiation. In Putin’s view, any lasting peace must cement these territorial gains as permanent and legal.

Sources briefed on Moscow's thinking have told Reuters that Russia would relinquish tiny pockets of occupied Ukraine and Kyiv would cede swathes of its eastern land which Moscow has been unable to capture, under peace proposals discussed by Russia's Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump at their Alaska summit. The account emerged the day after Trump and Putin met in Alaska. Under the proposed Russian deal, Kyiv would fully withdraw from the eastern Donetsk and Luhansk regions in return for a Russian pledge to freeze the front lines in the southern regions of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, the sources told Reuters. Russia would be prepared to return comparatively small tracts of Ukrainian land it has occupied in the northern Sumy and northeastern Kharkiv regions, the sources said.

What he appears willing to accept in return is a form of military neutrality for Ukraine, underwritten by the US and Europe. The catch is that the guarantees cannot imply future NATO integration or embolden Kyiv to reverse the status quo militarily. While this formula could theoretically end hostilities, it comes with a steep cost for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Putin's strategy seems to exploit divisions between Trump and his European allies, encourage Western fatigue, and solidify gains without further escalation. His willingness to talk does not reflect weakness, but rather a belief that time, politics and global disunity are now on his side.

Zelenskyy doesn't want peace at the cost of sovereignty
Zelenskyy enters the Washington meetings with a defiant message: peace cannot come at the price of Ukraine’s territorial integrity. He has consistently rejected any settlement that formalises Russian control over Crimea or the territories won by Russia. For Zelenskyy, these are not bargaining chips. They are parts of Ukraine’s sovereign territory, enshrined in its constitution. He has already rejected any retreat from Ukrainian land such as the Donetsk region, where its troops are dug in and which Kyiv says serves as a crucial defensive structure to prevent Russian attacks deeper into its territory.

At the same time, Zelenskyy is not dismissing diplomacy and appears quite subdued after his previous meeting with Trump and JD Vance in the White House which involved heated exchanges. He has welcomed the concept of NATO-style security guarantees, provided they are credible, enforceable and multilateral. Such guarantees, he argues, must go beyond paper promises. They need to include air defense systems, naval support, intelligence sharing and military commitments from multiple European powers and not just the US.

Zelenskyy’s position is also shaped by recent experiences. Being excluded from the Trump-Putin meeting in Alaska was a bitter reminder of how easily Ukraine’s interests can be sidelined in great power politics. By arriving in Washington alongside the leaders of France, the UK, Germany, and others, he is sending a clear signal: Ukraine is not alone, and any deal that bypasses Kyiv will not hold.

Ultimately, Zelenskyy’s challenge is to hold the diplomatic line without alienating the US, his most important security partner. He must reject any deal that rewards aggression while still appearing open to a negotiated peace which is a delicate tightrope walk.

Sidelined European leaders want a say
Europe’s major powers have rallied behind Zelenskyy, not only to support Ukraine but to assert their role in shaping the outcome of the war. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Italian Premier Giorgia Meloni, Finnish President Alexander Stubb and NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte have all traveled to Washington to demonstrate unity. Their goal is to ensure that the emerging settlement upholds international law and doesn’t allow Moscow to dictate terms through military force.

European leaders largely support the idea of NATO-style guarantees, but only if they’re part of a robust, long-term defense strategy and not a face-saving exit ramp for Trump or a reward for Putin. Ukraine must become a steel porcupine that no attacker can digest,' von der Leyen has said, armed and fortified to deter future Russian aggression.

A virtual meeting of a grouping of ‘Coalition of the Willing’ leaders with the participation of Zelenskyy has floated troop deployment for post-war stabilisation of Ukraine. Commending Trump’s security guarantees to Ukraine, the grouping said it will play a vital role through the Multinational Force Ukraine, among other measures. The European leaders once again emphasised the readiness to deploy a reassurance force once hostilities have ceased, and to help secure Ukraine’s skies and seas and regenerate Ukraine’s armed forces.


Unlike Trump, who appears focused on immediate conflict resolution, Europe is thinking about the postwar order. Their fear is that a weak or rushed deal could embolden other autocratic powers and unravel decades of European security architecture. From their standpoint, a just peace must reaffirm Ukraine’s sovereignty, punish aggression and maintain Europe’s credibility as a security actor.

European leaders are also working to contain Trump’s impulse to centralise negotiations and sideline allies. By standing shoulder to shoulder with Zelenskyy in Washington, they are pushing back on any impression that Ukraine is simply a pawn in a US–Russia geopolitical bargain.

(With inputs from agencies)