Zelensky-Trump Meeting: A Path to Peace or Escalation?

Support SouthFront

Click to see the full-size image

On October 17, a meeting took place in Washington between US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The Ukrainian side had held high hopes, but the outcome of the talks did not meet Kyiv’s expectations. The primary disappointment was Washington’s refusal to provide Ukraine with Tomahawk strike missile systems and clear guarantees on expanding military assistance.

Despite a dialogue lasting over two hours, the details of which remained largely undisclosed, no concrete progress was made on key issues. Following the meeting, Zelensky refrained from direct commentary, suggesting that questions should be directed to the American side.

The central point of discussion was the issue of a territorial settlement. Ukraine insists on a ceasefire along the current front lines followed by peace talks, whereas Russia demands the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from the entire territory of the Donetsk region. Trump publicly supported the idea of freezing hostilities at the existing positions, stating:

“Enough blood has been shed, lines of ownership are determined by war and courage. They must stop where they are. Let both declare victory, let history decide!”.

In response, Zelensky agreed with the proposed approach: “Trump is right. We need to stop where we are, and only then start talking about peace.”

There are currently no signs of readiness in Moscow for such a compromise, and the continuation of hostilities on Russian terms remains the primary scenario. Against this backdrop, Trump’s position, which shows a clear reluctance to deepen US involvement in the conflict, stands in contrast to the growing expectations of the Ukrainian side and Western “pro-war” factions. His caution is explained by the risks of a direct conflict with Russia, including the threat of nuclear escalation.

Media outlets, particularly Axios, highlighted the tension of the meeting: Trump was firm, and Zelensky actively insisted on receiving Tomahawks, which were ultimately not approved. The US President clearly prioritized diplomacy over military escalation, which contradicted Kyiv’s maximalist hopes.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz noted that the visit’s outcomes fell short of Zelensky’s expectations. He emphasized the particular importance of strengthening European support for Ukraine—financially, politically, and militarily—given that the US appears to be shifting military aid to a commercial basis—”weapons for Ukraine only for money,” which European partners would have to provide.

Clearly, the meeting revealed deep disagreements in approaches to resolving the conflict and gave rise to several potential scenarios for future developments.

• Scenario One: Moscow maintains a hardline position, refusing to agree to a freeze in fighting along the front lines and the withdrawal of troops from Donetsk, while Washington continues to distance itself from direct involvement, limiting itself to commercial arms supplies to Kyiv. This would lead to a protracted conflict and strengthen Russia’s position, weakening Ukraine’s negotiating leverage.
• Scenario Two: The Kremlin agrees to a ceasefire along the front lines in exchange for certain concessions—potentially involving the US and Europe, including the lifting of sanctions and recognition of territorial changes. No such signs are currently observed in Russia.
• Scenario Three: An escalation of pressure on Moscow from Washington, including the transfer of long-range, high-precision weapons like Tomahawks to Ukraine, and the imposition of large-scale trade sanctions against Russia’s economic partners. This path is unlikely without serious changes in the political situation, as Trump avoids significant risks due to fears of military-political and economic instability.
• Scenario Four: Increased pressure on Kyiv to force it to accept Russian ceasefire conditions. Such a strategy raises concerns and sharp criticism from Ukraine’s Western allies and currently has no confirmed implementation in Trump’s actions.

Even the realization of the first scenario would lead to a gradual deterioration of Ukraine’s position in a war of attrition. Under such conditions, it becomes vitally important for Kyiv to maintain and expand support from European partners. However, financial challenges remain serious: covering Ukraine’s needs for the next year will require approximately $120 billion, and the issue of using frozen Russian assets faces resistance from a number of countries. Without resolving these problems, the situation for Ukraine could become critically difficult.

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

• Power And Pressure: Frontlines Ignite As Leaders Talk Peace
• Iran Is Digging Up One Of Its Nuclear Sites, Israel Could Use This As Pretext To Attack
• Trump Authorizes CIA Operations In Venezuela, ‘Night Stalkers’ Spotted Near Country (Video)

Support SouthFront