Ukraine's Zelenskyy to meet Trump on Monday after US-Russia summit secured no deal
madison.com -- Saturday, August 16, 2025, 4:53:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: Foreign Policy & International Relations, U.S.–Russia Relations, Media Coverage & Press Relations
KYIV, Ukraine -- Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy will meet Monday in Washington with U.S. President Donald Trump, who shifted to saying an overall peace agreement -- not a ceasefire -- is the next step in ending the 3½-year-old war.
Trump's abrupt reversal, aligning himself with a position held by Russian President Vladimir Putin, came in a social media post Saturday, hours after those two leaders concluded a summit in Alaska that produced no agreement to halt the fighting.
Putin long said that Moscow is not interested in a temporary truce, and instead seeks a long-term settlement that takes the Kremlin's interests into account.
After calls with Zelenskyy and European leaders, Trump posted that "it was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up."
People are also reading... Breaking Bad actor says Wisconsin Dells was 'too impressive' to film new movie there Judge says former Waunakee player, parent's case against basketball coach can proceed Underground fire paralyzes Downtown Madison, leaves hundreds without power Madison tells Social Justice Center to reduce 'nuisance activity' or face sanctions Record rain fuels flooding in Milwaukee; Madison's totals significant, too Beloved Taj Indian returns, at former Borough on Park Street Here's how much rain Madison and Milwaukee got over the weekend Ambitious 8-building redevelopment begins in Downtown Madison Update: Death in manure pit appears accidental, Sheriff's Office says This year's Ride the Drive is canceled Driver cited in crash that killed UW Health executive Former Wisconsin coach Marisa Moseley caused 'severe emotional distress,' players say in lawsuit Homeless housing provider plans new development on East Side Brewers' win means free burgers for all at George Webb Sun Prairie school district criticized after ex-dean is charged with felonies
In a statement after the Trump call, the European leaders did not address whether a peace deal was preferable to a ceasefire, saying they "welcomed President Trump's efforts to stop the killing in Ukraine, end Russia's war of aggression, and achieve just and lasting peace."
Trump and Ukraine's European allies previously called for a ceasefire ahead of negotiations.
Trump's statement that a peace agreement should be reached appears to indicate Trump's thinking is "shifting towards Putin," an approach that would allow Moscow to keep fighting while negotiating, said Nigel Gould-Davies, a senior fellow at the International Institute of Strategic Studies in London.
Government-politics No deal to end Russia's war in Ukraine after Trump rolls out red carpet for Putin MICHELLE L. PRICE and WILL WEISSERT Associated Press
Zelenskyy, who was not invited to Friday's summit, said he had a "long and substantive" conversation with Trump early Saturday. He said they would "discuss all of the details regarding ending the killing and the war" Monday.
It will be Zelenskyy's first visit to the U.S. since Trump berated him during a Feb. 28 Oval Office meeting.
Trump, who also held calls with European leaders Saturday, confirmed the White House meeting and said, "if all works out, we will then schedule a meeting with President Putin."
Trump rolled out the red carpet Friday for Putin, who was in the U.S. for the first time in a decade and since the start of his full-scale invasion of Ukraine. He gave little concrete detail afterward of what was discussed. On Saturday, he posted on social media that it "went very well."
Zelenskyy seeks European involvement
Zelenskyy reiterated the importance of involving European leaders, who also were not at the summit.
"It is important that Europeans are involved at every stage to ensure reliable security guarantees together with America," he said. "We also discussed positive signals from the American side regarding participation in guaranteeing Ukraine's security."
He didn't elaborate, but Zelenskyy previously said European partners put on hold a proposal to establish a foreign troop presence in Ukraine to deter Russian aggression because it lacked an American backstop.
Zelenskyy said he spoke to Trump one-on-one and then in a call with other European leaders. In total, the conversations lasted over 90 minutes.
Listen now and subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS Feed | SoundStack | All Of Our Podcasts
Trump puts onus on Zelenskyy and Europe
Trump said in Alaska that "there's no deal until there's a deal," after Putin claimed the two leaders hammered out an "understanding" on Ukraine and warned Europe not to "torpedo the nascent progress."
During an interview with Fox News Channel before returning to Washington, Trump insisted the onus going forward might be on Zelenskyy "to get it done," but said there would also be some involvement from European nations.
In their statement, major European leaders said they were ready to work with Trump and Zelenskyy toward "a trilateral summit with European support."
The statement from French, German, Italian, British, Finnish, Polish and European Union leaders said, "Ukraine must have ironclad security guarantees" and welcomed U.S. readiness to provide them.
"It will be up to Ukraine to make decisions on its territory," they said. "International borders must not be changed by force."
EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said, "the harsh reality is that Russia has no intention of ending this war anytime soon," noting Moscow launched new attacks on Ukraine even as the delegations met.
"Putin continues to drag out negotiations and hopes he gets away with it," she said. "He left Anchorage without making any commitments to end the killing."
Ukrainian and Russian forces are fighting along a 620-mile front line. Since spring, Russian troops accelerated their gains, capturing the most territory since the opening stages of the war.
Questions on a trilateral meeting
Zelenskyy voiced support for Trump's proposal for a trilateral meeting with the U.S. and Russia. He said that "key issues can be discussed at the level of leaders, and a trilateral format is suitable for this."
But Putin's foreign affairs adviser, Yuri Ushakov, told Russian state television Saturday that a possible three-way meeting "has not been touched upon yet" in U.S.-Russia discussions.
Zelenskyy wrote on social media that he told Trump "sanctions should be strengthened if there is no trilateral meeting or if Russia tries to evade an honest end to the war."
France, the U.K. and Germany will co-host a video call Sunday afternoon of so-called "coalition of the willing" nations that could help monitor and uphold any deal to end fighting, French President Emmanuel Macron's office said.
Russian officials and media struck a largely positive tone after Friday's summit, with some describing it as a symbolic end to Putin's isolation in the West.
"Vladimir Putin came to the Alaska summit with the principal goal of stalling any pressure on Russia to end the war," said Neil Melvin, director of international security at the London-based Royal United Services Institute. "He will consider the summit outcome as mission accomplished."
Photos of the Putin-Trump summit in Alaska Get Government & Politics updates in your inbox!
Stay up-to-date on the latest in local and national government and political topics with our newsletter.
Sign up! * I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.
Sign Our PetitionThe recent meeting between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and former U.S. President Donald Trump serves as a pivotal moment in understanding the complex geopolitical landscape surrounding the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Trump’s shift from advocating for a ceasefire to promoting a comprehensive peace agreement aligns with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s long-standing position, raising significant concerns about the implications for Ukraine and its sovereignty. This development not only underscores the precarious nature of international diplomacy but also highlights the broader historical context that continues to shape Eastern European politics.
Historically, Ukraine has been caught in the crossfire of Russian ambitions since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. The 2014 annexation of Crimea by Russia and its support for separatist movements in Eastern Ukraine have firmly established the region as a flashpoint for international tensions. The West's response has often been fractured, with European leaders and the United States struggling to present a unified front against Russian aggression. Trump’s recent comments, which seem to echo Putin’s rhetoric, exacerbate these divisions and raise questions about the reliability of U.S. support for Ukraine. It is vital to recognize that this is not merely a foreign policy issue; it reflects a broader struggle for self-determination and autonomy that resonates deeply with the historical experiences of many nations under imperial or authoritarian rule.
The implications of Trump’s stance extend beyond mere diplomatic language; they touch upon the lives of everyday Ukrainians who continue to endure the ravages of war. A peace agreement that prioritizes negotiations over the immediate cessation of hostilities may allow Russia to maintain its military posture while offering an illusion of diplomacy. For those impacted by the conflict, including the millions of displaced people and casualties, the notion of a "peaceful" resolution becomes complicated when it risks legitimizing ongoing aggression. Advocates for social justice must highlight these human realities, emphasizing that peace cannot be achieved at the expense of justice and the recognition of Ukraine’s right to self-defense.
Moreover, the reaction from European leaders, who welcomed Trump’s initiative without critically addressing its potential outcomes, reveals a troubling complacency in the face of Russian expansionism. The international community must not overlook the lessons of history, particularly regarding the dangers of appeasement. The pre-World War II era serves as a cautionary tale—concessions made to aggressors often embolden them further. The urgency of a united, principled response to the situation in Ukraine is paramount; it is essential for global stability and the defense of democratic values.
Finally, as discussions about the Ukraine conflict unfold, it is crucial to frame the conversation within the context of broader social struggles against authoritarianism and for human rights. The fight for Ukraine is emblematic of a global fight against oppression, where the stakes are not just national borders but the very principles of democracy and freedom. Engaging in these discussions with a historical lens not only empowers individuals to understand the intricacies of current events but also provides a moral imperative to advocate for justice, sovereignty, and the protection of human rights in the face of aggression. The path forward must prioritize a genuine commitment to peace rooted in justice, recognizing that true stability can only be achieved when the rights and voices of all affected people are respected and upheld.
The recent dynamics between the United States, Ukraine, and Russia exemplify the complexities of international diplomacy and the shifting allegiances that can arise in the pursuit of peace. The meeting between President Zelenskyy and President Trump, especially following a summit that yielded no tangible agreements, raises critical questions about the nature of peace negotiations and the underlying power structures at play. Historically, peace in conflict zones has often been elusive, with leaders prioritizing political expediency over the lasting stability that genuine resolutions demand. As we analyze these developments, it's essential to consider not only the immediate implications but also the broader context of U.S.-Russia relations, the interests that drive these interactions, and what this means for ordinary Americans.
The backdrop of this meeting is steeped in a history of U.S. interventionism and the complex geopolitical chess game between the West and Russia. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, U.S. foreign policy has frequently swung between supporting nations against perceived aggressors and engaging directly in conflicts that may not directly serve American interests. In Ukraine, a nation caught in a struggle for sovereignty against Russian expansionism, it is vital to recognize the implications of aligning with a leader whose approach may favor negotiating with an aggressor rather than supporting a steadfast ally. This historical lens reminds us that the stakes are not simply about territorial integrity but about the principles of democracy and self-determination that many Americans hold dear.
As this situation unfolds, the question arises: what can we, as engaged citizens, do to influence the direction of U.S. foreign policy? First and foremost, it is crucial to foster a robust dialogue around the principles of international solidarity and justice. Engaging in community discussions, attending town halls, and contacting representatives to emphasize the importance of supporting Ukraine's right to self-defense can amplify the voices advocating for a more principled approach to foreign policy. Additionally, supporting organizations that promote peace and human rights can help ensure that diplomatic efforts do not compromise the dignity and agency of the nations involved.
Moreover, it is essential to educate ourselves and others about the historical patterns of conflict and resolution in similar geopolitical situations. Understanding the nuances of peace agreements—how they are constructed, who they benefit, and what they often overlook—can provide invaluable insight into the current crisis. For instance, many past agreements have failed because they favored the interests of powerful nations over the needs of the local populace. By equipping ourselves with this knowledge, we can engage in more informed discussions with those who may hold opposing views, illustrating the potential pitfalls of a peace agreement that leans towards appeasing Russia while sidelining Ukraine’s sovereignty.
The rhetoric emerging from the Trump administration also demands scrutiny. The shift towards a peace agreement rather than a ceasefire reflects a willingness to compromise without adequate assurances for Ukraine. As citizens, we must challenge narratives that normalize this approach. Engaging in conversations about the implications of such a policy shift—both for Ukraine and for the principles of international law—can help build a broader consensus around the need for a just and equitable resolution. This is not merely a matter of foreign policy; it speaks to our values as a nation and our responsibility towards global humanity.
In conclusion, the meeting between Zelenskyy and Trump highlights the precarious nature of international diplomacy and the necessity for active citizenship in steering U.S. foreign policy towards a more principled stance. By fostering dialogue, educating ourselves, and holding our leaders accountable, we can contribute to a more compassionate and just approach to international relations. As we engage with differing viewpoints, it is crucial to emphasize the importance of sovereignty, human rights, and the need to learn from historical precedents in crafting a future that honors these values. Through collective action and informed advocacy, we can push for a foreign policy that truly reflects the ideals of democracy and justice, both at home and abroad.
Analyzing the article regarding the recent developments in Ukraine and the U.S. political landscape, there are several actionable steps we can take as concerned individuals. Here’s a detailed list of ideas and actions that can be pursued to advocate for a resolution to the conflict in Ukraine, promoting peace and accountability in international relations.
### What Can We Personally Do About This?
1. **Stay Informed**: Follow credible news sources and organizations that cover the conflict in Ukraine to understand the evolving situation and the implications of political decisions.
2. **Engage with Local Communities**: Attend local events or forums discussing international relations, peace initiatives, or support for Ukraine to raise awareness and mobilize community action.
3. **Support Humanitarian Efforts**: Contribute to organizations providing aid to those affected by the conflict, such as medical assistance, food, and shelter.
### Exact Actions We Can Take
1. **Sign Petitions**: - **End Military Aid to Russia**: Support petitions that call on the U.S. government to halt any form of military cooperation with Russia until a transparent peace process is established. - Example: Search for petitions on platforms like Change.org or MoveOn.org focusing on U.S. foreign policy regarding Ukraine.
2. **Write Letters to Elected Officials**: - **Contact Your Representatives**: Write to your Senators and House Representatives urging them to advocate for a robust peace agreement that prioritizes Ukrainian sovereignty and human rights. - **Senator Jon Tester** (D-MT) - Email: tester.senate.gov/contact - USPS Address: 311 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510 - **Senator Tammy Baldwin** (D-WI) - Email: baldwin.senate.gov/contact - USPS Address: 709 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510
- **Sample Message**: ``` Subject: Urgent Call for Peace in Ukraine
Dear Senator [Name],
I am writing to express my concern regarding the ongoing war in Ukraine and the recent developments involving U.S. and Russian leaders. It is crucial that the U.S. takes a strong stance in supporting a peace agreement that respects Ukraine's sovereignty and prioritizes the welfare of its citizens. I urge you to advocate for diplomatic solutions over military engagements and to ensure that humanitarian aid reaches those in need.
Thank you for your attention to this pressing issue.
Sincerely, [Your Name] [Your Address] ```
3. **Participate in Advocacy Campaigns**: - Join organizations such as the **Ukrainian Congress Committee of America (UCCA)** or **Amnesty International** that focus on human rights and peace initiatives. They often have campaigns that require signatures, phone calls, or outreach to policymakers.
4. **Attend Rallies or Peace Marches**: - Look for local or national events advocating for peace in Ukraine. Participating in these can help raise awareness and show solidarity with affected populations.
### Conclusion
By taking these actions, individuals can contribute to a broader movement advocating for peace and accountability in the context of the Ukraine conflict. Engaging with elected officials, supporting humanitarian efforts, and participating in community discussions are all effective ways to make a difference. Staying informed and proactive can help foster an environment that prioritizes dialogue and conflict resolution over aggression.