Washington — President Volodymyr Zelensky arrived at the White House on Monday backed by an extraordinary phalanx of European leaders, intent on shoring up support as President Donald Trump pressed for a swift peace with Russia that, by most accounts, would require sweeping Ukrainian concessions.
Gone was Zelensky’s trademark combat-green. Opting for a dark, civilian ensemble, the Ukrainian leader was greeted warmly by Mr Trump, a striking contrast to their acrimonious Oval Office encounter in February. Sitting alongside European presidents and prime ministers who had rushed to Washington “to defend the interests of the Europeans,” as France’s Emmanuel Macron put it, both leaders spoke of security guarantees for Ukraine and floated a trilateral meeting with Russia’s Vladimir Putin.
For all the genial optics, substance proved elusive. Mr Trump said he believed there was a “reasonable chance” of ending the war via a face-to-face between Mr Putin and Mr Zelensky — possibly with him present — and that the United States “would be involved” in Kyiv’s future security. He did not rule out an American troop role while remaining non-specific about the shape of any guarantees. Mr Zelensky, who handed Mr Trump a letter from his wife to the first lady, said guarantees were “essential,” alongside a full prisoner exchange.
Europeans pile in, ceasefire splits the room
Mindful of Moscow’s battlefield momentum and wary of a deal that rewards aggression, European leaders turned out in force: Britain’s Keir Starmer, France’s Mr Macron, Germany’s Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Italy’s Giorgia Meloni and Finland’s Alexander Stubb joined NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte at the White House. Several pressed for a ceasefire before further talks. “I can’t imagine the next meeting will take place without a ceasefire,” Mr Merz said. Mr Trump, who a day earlier had suggested a ceasefire was out of reach, replied that in other conflicts progress had been made without one: “If we can get a ceasefire, great.”
Across the table, European officials repeatedly invoked “Article 5-like” assurances — a political attempt to treat Ukraine as if it were inside NATO, even though membership is off the table for now. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen underscored that any design would need to be robust and continent-wide. Mr Macron praised the “very important” idea of a trilateral meeting and even floated a follow-on quadrilateral format to codify guarantees.
Moscow draws a red line
From Moscow came a pointed rejoinder. The Russian Foreign Ministry issued a statement “categorically” rejecting any scenario that places NATO troops in Ukraine as part of security guarantees, and castigated Britain for allegedly pushing the idea. The blast of rhetoric raised fresh questions about what, precisely, Washington and Moscow discussed during Mr Trump’s Alaska summit with Mr Putin on Friday, after the U.S. president’s envoy suggested Russia had accepted Western security guarantees in principle.
Mr Trump said he had communicated indirectly with Mr Putin earlier on Monday and planned to speak with him later, while again hinting that a trilateral with Mr Zelensky could come together “if everything works out well today.” The Kremlin has been publicly non-committal; Mr Putin has previously said he would meet the Ukrainian leader only after the contours of any deal were agreed.
Territory, prisoners — and pressure
The most combustible issues — borders and justice — remain unresolved. Mr Zelensky has steadfastly rejected ceding land, yet Mr Trump has aligned himself more closely with Mr Putin since their warm Alaska meeting, adding to Kyiv’s pressure to extract a “better deal” from Washington. In the room on Monday, participants alluded to detailed map work; “Thank you for the map,” Mr Zelensky said at one point, signalling granular bargaining over any land swaps.
On prisoners, Mr Trump said he expected Mr Putin to release more than 1,000 Ukrainians if a trilateral meeting is set — an assertion the Kremlin has not confirmed. Mr Zelensky has repeatedly raised Russia’s treatment of Ukrainian prisoners of war, many of whom report torture, starvation and electric shocks. A major exchange in May saw roughly 1,000 prisoners swapped over three days, but thousands more — including civilian detainees — remain in Russian hands.
War doesn’t pause for diplomacy
Even as motorcades rolled up to the West Wing, the war bit hard at home. Russian strikes in Kharkiv and Zaporizhzhia killed at least 10 people, including a child, and injured dozens, according to Ukrainian authorities. Mr Zelensky condemned the attacks as pressure tactics timed to the talks.
The battlefield context undercuts Washington’s optimism. Mr Trump has oscillated in tone — telling Mr Zelensky in their last Oval Office encounter that the Ukrainian leader “does not hold the cards,” then venting publicly that Mr Putin was stringing him along, even as the U.S. green-lights additional European arms destined for Ukraine. Asked Monday which side holds the advantage, Mr Trump demurred, returning to his central theme: end the fighting.
If there is a template emerging, it resembles three pillars:
Security guarantees: Europeans talk of Article 5-style commitments; Kyiv insists they must be legally binding and specify concrete actions if Russia attacks again. Moscow says NATO troops in Ukraine are a red line.
Prisoner releases: A large-scale exchange would offer early proof of goodwill and humanitarian relief, but verifying numbers and status — especially for civilian detainees — is fraught.
Territorial questions: Mr Trump signalled that discussions on borders should be handled directly by Mr Zelensky and Mr Putin. Kyiv’s public stance opposes ceding land; Moscow reportedly seeks recognition of its control over the remainder of the Donbas and occupied territories, including Crimea. Bridging that gap will test any framework.
For now, pageantry outpaces progress. The optics — Zelensky suited, Europeans effusive, Trump casting himself as deal-maker — mark a notable thaw from February’s televised Oval Office clash. But unless the parties can square incompatible demands on security, sovereignty and justice, the summitry risks becoming theatre. As Mr Zelensky and his allies pressed in Washington, events in Kharkiv and Zaporizhzhia offered a stark reminder: in this war, diplomacy and deterrence succeed or fail under fire.