When Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky met to discuss a potential peace framework to end the Russia-Ukraine war, expectations were inevitably very high. Any direct engagement between Washington and Kiev at this stage of the conflict has global implications – not just for Eastern Europe, but also for the future of international security, energy markets, defense alliances and diplomacy.

Yet despite “constructive” discussions by both sides, no final agreement was reached. Instead, the meeting highlighted why ending a war is far more complex than drafting a peace proposal or declaring a political intention.

This article explains what the Trump-Zelensky meeting was about, what progress was reportedly made, where the talks stalled, and why peace – for now – remains elusive.

Why does this meeting matter?

The Russia–Ukraine war has entered a protracted phase where military gains are increasing, costs are increasing and diplomatic pressure is increasing. In this background, any effort to revive peace talks attracts intense attention.

Trump’s involvement is particularly significant. Known for his unconventional diplomatic style, he has repeatedly claimed that he could end the war quickly if given the chance. Meanwhile, Zelensky faces growing domestic pressure to protect Ukraine’s sovereignty while managing war fatigue, economic stress and persistent Russian attacks.

Therefore their meeting was not symbolic. It was a serious attempt to explore whether political rapprochement – ​​particularly between the United States and Ukraine – could unlock a broader peace process.

What was discussed behind closed doors

According to officials familiar with the talks, discussions focused on a proposed multi-point framework intended to serve as a basis for negotiations rather than a final solution.

Main topics include:

• Armistice terms
• Security Guarantee for Ukraine
• Future status of disputed areas
• Role of international mediators

How and when will Russia be brought into formal talks

Although both sides reportedly found common ground on many principles, agreement on details proved far more difficult.

This result was not unexpected. Peace negotiations in modern conflicts rarely fail because of intent; They fail because of inconsistent positions on power, territory and long-term security.

Main problem: area

The biggest hurdle is the area itself.

Ukraine says its internationally recognized borders are non-negotiable. Any agreement that legitimizes territorial losses would, in Kiev’s view, reward aggression and set a dangerous global precedent.

Russia, on the other hand, continues to claim control over parts of eastern and southern Ukraine. For Moscow, giving up these areas would weaken both strategic depth and the domestic political narrative.

Trump’s approach reportedly attempted to frame regional questions as part of a phased process rather than an immediate solution. But for Ukraine, temporary ambiguity also carries long-term risks.

This fundamental mismatch explains why conversations struggle to move beyond exploratory stages.

Security Guarantee: The Second Big Hurdle

Even if territorial issues are put aside, Ukraine insists on credible security guarantees.

Previous agreements and assurances failed to stop the invasion. As a result, Kyiv is reluctant to accept vague promises or politically reversible commitments.

What Ukraine wants is clear:

• Strong international guarantee
• Anticipated military and economic aid
• Long-term deterrence against renewed aggression

For the United States, especially under a potential Trump-led framework, the challenge lies in balancing commitments without escalating tensions with Russia or engaging Washington in overt commitments.

This tension remains unresolved – and without resolution, no peace agreement can survive.

The Russian factor: absent but central

Notably, Russia was not part of the Trump-Zelensky meeting.

This absence highlights a key limitation: no peace plan can succeed without Russian participation. Although bilateral alignment between the US and Ukraine is necessary, it is not sufficient.

Moscow has so far reacted cautiously to reports of peace discussions, indicating neither outright rejection nor outright involvement. This ambiguity allows Russia to continue military operations while assessing diplomatic risks.

In reality, negotiations are taking place in layers – the most decisive actors are still outside the room.

Why “Progress” Not Equal Peace?

Progress was emphasized in public statements after the meeting. But progress in diplomacy often means reducing differences, not eliminating them.

Several factors explain why negotiations stalled in the absence of agreement:

• Different timelines for ceasefire implementation
• Disagreement over order of concessions
• Domestic political obstacles everywhere
• lack of enforcement mechanism

Importantly, even well-structured peace structures fail if trust is absent. Years of war, broken agreements and changing alliances have eroded trust between all parties.

Domestic political angle

For Zelensky, any agreement risks an adverse reaction domestically. Ukrainian society has paid a heavy price in lives and infrastructure, making concessions politically dangerous.

For Trump, positioning himself as a deal-maker holds both opportunities and risks. An apparent success may strengthen his foreign-policy image, but a failed initiative exposes the limitations of personal diplomacy.

These domestic calculations shape what leaders can realistically project – regardless of personal intentions.

wider global implications

The outcome of these talks matters beyond Ukraine.

A successful peace process will:

• stabilize European security
• Reduce pressure on global energy markets
• Reduce uncertainty about defense spending
• Signal boosted confidence in diplomacy

However, the failure reinforces a different message: that modern wars are hard to end even with global attention and high-level involvement.

Other conflicts – from the Middle East to Asia – are watching closely to see how this process unfolds.

What happens next?

Despite no deal, diplomacy is not over.

Future possibilities include:

• Expanded multilateral talks including Europe
• Confidence-building measures like humanitarian corridors
• Limited ceasefires involving specific areas or objectives
• back-channel negotiations

None of these guarantee success. But he suggests that negotiations, while delicate, remain active.

Reality check

The Trump-Zelensky meeting highlights a central truth: peace is not blocked by a lack of dialogue, but by inconsistent approaches to security and sovereignty.

Declarations alone cannot end wars. Sustainable peace requires coordination not only among leaders, but also among nations, institutions, and populations shaped by conflict.

For now, the talks represent movement – ​​but not a solution.

Conclusion: Diplomacy continues, uncertainty remains

The meeting between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky was fruitful, but not decisive. It clarified conditions, tested assumptions and highlighted the scale of the challenge ahead.

Peace is possible – but not imminent.

As negotiations continue in various forms, the world is reminded that ending modern war is rarely about finding the right documents. It’s about reshaping trust, power and long-term security – a process that takes time, patience and realism.

At present diplomacy is continuing.

However, the outcome remains uncertain.

Insights from Newswell:

The Trump-Zelensky meeting highlights that the biggest obstacle to peace is no longer negotiations, but unresolved fundamental principles. While diplomatic engagement signals a willingness to find solutions, deep differences over territory, long-term security guarantees and Russia’s role continue to block any final agreement. The talks reflect progress in communication, not convergence in positions – underscoring that ending the Ukraine war will require sustained multilateral pressure, credible security frameworks and compromise that will remain politically difficult for all parties.

Frequently Asked Questions