Trump to host Zelenskyy in DC, eyes trilateral summit with Putin - Muvi TV
muvitv.com -- Saturday, August 16, 2025, 5:51:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: U.S.–Russia Relations, Foreign Policy & International Relations, U.S.–NATO Relations
President Donald Trump will host Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White House on Monday to discuss peace negotiations, following Trump's summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday. The U.S. and Ukrainian leaders held a phone conversation on Saturday, during which Trump briefed Zelenskyy on what was discussed in Alaska.
Trump has already signaled that the U.S. is now in favor of a comprehensive peace agreement, something Putin has long advocated for, as opposed to Zelenskyy's goal of first achieving a ceasefire that turns into a peace agreement.
On Saturday, Pauline Jones, a political science and research professor at the University of Michigan's Center for Political Studies, told Straight Arrow News the distinction between a ceasefire and a peace agreement is an important one.
"[A ceasefire] precedes a peace agreement because it is necessary to stop the killing, allow humanitarian aid and most importantly, build trust between the warring parties so that they can negotiate a diplomatic end to the conflict," Jones said.
Following his meeting with Putin, Trump spoke to Zelenskyy for roughly an hour on the phone. The two were then joined for an additional half-hour by European leaders.
"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," Trump wrote on Truth Social after the phone call.
Neither Zelenskyy nor the coalition of European leaders has spoken about a peace agreement versus a ceasefire.
Trump concluded his post by saying that Zelenskyy will be traveling to the White House on Monday, adding, "If all works out, we will then schedule a meeting with President Putin."
This will be Zelenskyy's first time visiting the White House since his now-infamous Oval Office meeting with Trump and Vice President JD Vance in February. The meeting abruptly ended after Trump and Vance accused Zelenskyy of "disrespecting" the U.S., being ungrateful and having zero leverage in the negotiations.
Zelenskyy and Trump's meeting will come three days after the U.S. president met with Putin in Alaska. The world leaders talked behind closed doors for three hours, reportedly discussing how to end the conflict. However, no concrete details were provided.
The two didn't take any questions from reporters as their summit concluded, but did offer brief remarks. Putin said that they came to "agreements" about potential peace in Ukraine. Trump, meanwhile, called the meeting "extremely productive."
"We had an extremely productive meeting, and many points were agreed to," Trump said, without elaborating. "There are just a very few that are left. Some are not that significant. One is probably the most significant. But we have a very good chance of getting there. We didn't get there, but we have a very good chance of getting there."
Previously, Trump had alluded to a possible "land swap" as part of a lasting peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine. While Zelenskyy ruled out surrendering all land claimed by Russia, Western officials said he may be willing to freeze the front lines where they currently stand -- effectively allowing Russia to retain control of areas it occupies.
On Saturday, Trump addressed the possibility while speaking to Fox News' Sean Hannity.
"I think those are points that we negotiated, and those are points that we largely have agreed on. I think we're pretty close to a deal," Trump said. He then clarified, "Ukraine has to agree to it. Maybe they'll say no."
Saturday's social media post was the first time Trump publicly supported the idea of a peace agreement. Jones described the shift as "crucial," saying Putin's reference to an "agreement" after his meeting with Trump "may have been to jettison the ceasefire in pursuit of a peace agreement."
Additionally, Jones said, it signals a willingness by Trump to align the U.S. with Russia's interests, as well as to concede the four Ukrainian territories Russia has partially occupied since the start of the war in 2022, including Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia.
"It is an outcome that rewards Putin for his violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and the myriad of human rights violations that Russian forces have committed against Ukraine since Putin's escalation of the war in February 2022," Jones said.
On Saturday, Zelenskyy voiced his support for a trilateral meeting involving his counterparts in the U.S. and Russia, but stopped short of addressing the idea of a peace agreement over a ceasefire.
"We support President Trump's proposal for a trilateral meeting between Ukraine, the USA, and Russia," Zelenskyy wrote on X, adding, "Ukraine emphasizes that key issues can be discussed at the level of leaders, and a trilateral format is suitable for this."
Zelenskyy also pushed for the inclusion of European leaders, writing, "It is important that Europeans are involved at every stage to ensure reliable security guarantees together with America."
Following their roughly 30-minute phone call with Trump and Zelenskyy, the leaders of France, Italy, Germany, Britain, Finland, Poland, the European Council and European Commission put out a joint statement calling for "ironclad security guarantees" that protect Ukraine's "sovereignty and territorial integrity."
"No limitations should be placed on Ukraine's armed forces or on its cooperation with third countries," the coalition wrote. "Russia cannot have a veto against Ukraine's pathway to EU and NATO."
Jones said that Trump has already stymied Ukraine's efforts to join NATO, describing it as "Putin's most coveted outcome of the war."
"This is most certainly also part of the peace agreement that Trump will put forward now," Jones said. "Less certain is whether the agreement would include any security guarantees for Ukraine once the conflict ends."
Barring the security guarantees of NATO membership -- including Article 5, which states that an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all -- Russia will use any peace agreement to "rebuild its military and economy in order to launch another invasion of Ukraine in the near future that would occupy the remaining territory and install a pro-Kremlin political leader in Kyiv," Jones said.
The European coalition also reiterated in its statement that Ukraine will decide what happens to its territory, adding, "International borders must not be changed by force."
Meanwhile, Trump has not broached the subject of tougher sanctions on Russia since floating the possibility while offering Moscow an initial 50-day ultimatum to end the war. That deadline was subsequently shortened, before Trump softened his stance ahead of his summit with Putin.
However, Zelenskyy said on Saturday that he told Trump that "sanctions should be strengthened if there is no trilateral meeting or if Russia tries to evade an honest end to the war."
The European coalition echoed those sentiments, writing in its statement, "As long as the killing in Ukraine continues, we stand ready to uphold the pressure on Russia. We will continue to strengthen sanctions and wider economic measures to put pressure on Russia's war economy until there is a just and lasting peace."
According to Jones, Zelenskyy will "likely be presented with a take it or else proposition by Trump on Monday." However, if that proposition includes Russian occupation of the four Ukrainian territories and an inability to join NATO, Zelenskyy "has no choice but to leave it."
"Accepting such an agreement would be a gross betrayal to both his country and the people of Ukraine who elected him by an overwhelming majority (over 70%) in 2019," Jones said.
Sign Our PetitionThe recent news surrounding President Trump's meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, particularly in the context of the ongoing war in Ukraine, raises critical questions about the nature of peace negotiations and the historical precedent of power dynamics in international relations. The Trump administration's pivot towards a comprehensive peace agreement, as opposed to an immediate ceasefire, reveals a significant shift in diplomatic strategy, albeit one that carries implications for the humanitarian aspects of the conflict. The distinction highlighted by political science expert Pauline Jones between a ceasefire and a peace agreement cannot be understated; it encapsulates the fundamental need for a temporary halt to violence in order to foster trust and allow for meaningful negotiations.
Historically, ceasefires have often been a precursor to lasting peace, yet they can also be fragile, prone to collapse without the necessary groundwork laid down through trust-building measures. The ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine is deeply rooted in a complex web of historical grievances, territorial disputes, and geopolitical interests. The idea of a peace agreement, particularly one that may favor the Kremlin's interests, raises the specter of sidelining Ukraine's sovereignty and its right to self-determination. This is a vital point to emphasize in discussions with those who may view the situation through a purely transactional lens, as it risks overlooking the lived experiences of those directly affected by the conflict.
Furthermore, Trump’s previous meetings with Zelenskyy and the derogatory remarks made during their discussions indicate a troubling dynamic that may undermine the Ukrainian leader's position. The assertion that Zelenskyy was “disrespecting” the U.S. and lacking leverage in negotiations reflects a broader pattern of dismissing the voices of smaller nations in favor of great power politics. This is especially pertinent considering Ukraine has been the battleground for larger geopolitical struggles, and its leaders should be afforded the respect and agency to pursue their national interests without fear of belittlement. Engaging in conversations that recognize the legitimacy of Ukraine’s position is crucial, particularly for those advocating for international solidarity and justice.
The involvement of European leaders in the discussions adds another layer of complexity to the negotiation framework. While it is important to include diverse perspectives in the quest for peace, the silence from European officials regarding the preference for a peace agreement over a ceasefire raises questions about their commitment to upholding international law and human rights. The European Union has historically positioned itself as a champion of democracy and human rights, and yet, the potential compromise of these principles in favor of expedient agreements should not go unchallenged. It is essential for advocates of social justice to bring this to light and hold leaders accountable for prioritizing political expediency over ethical considerations.
Finally, the implications of Trump's diplomatic approach should be viewed through the lens of the broader struggle for justice and equity in international relations. The U.S. has a long history of engaging with authoritarian regimes while neglecting the voices of marginalized groups, and this situation appears to be a continuation of that trend. The call for peace should not merely become a means to an end that facilitates power consolidation for certain leaders; rather, it should be rooted in the principles of justice, equality, and respect for all nations. As discussions unfold, it is imperative that advocates stress the importance of inclusive dialogue that prioritizes the humanitarian needs of those affected by war, and that any agreements reached do not come at the expense of Ukraine's sovereignty or the rights of its people. Engaging in this historical and social context enriches the discourse and equips activists with the necessary insights to challenge any narratives that undermine the plight of those caught in conflict.
The recent diplomatic developments surrounding the meeting between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, alongside Trump's engagement with Russian President Vladimir Putin, expose the complexities of international relations in Eastern Europe. Trump’s push for a peace agreement over a mere ceasefire illustrates a broader strategy that risks undermining the principles of humanitarian aid and trust-building essential for a sustainable resolution to conflict. This situation presents a critical opportunity for Americans to engage in informed political discourse, emphasizing the importance of prioritizing humanitarian concerns and the voices of the people affected by the war.
Historically, the conflict in Ukraine has roots that extend beyond the current leadership dynamics. The annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014 and the ongoing war in Eastern Ukraine have created a prolonged humanitarian crisis, with millions displaced and countless lives lost. The distinction between a ceasefire and a comprehensive peace agreement is not merely semantic; it reflects a fundamental understanding of conflict resolution. A ceasefire, while crucial for immediate relief, does not address the underlying issues that led to the conflict, and often fails to establish the trust necessary for long-term peace. Trump’s focus on a peace agreement, potentially influenced by his discussions with Putin, raises concerns about sidelining the Ukrainian perspective—a voice that must be central to any negotiation process.
As citizens, it is our responsibility to advocate for a foreign policy that respects the sovereignty and agency of nations embroiled in conflict. Engaging in conversations that highlight the importance of a ceasefire as a precursor to a robust peace agreement is essential. We can draw upon the expertise of scholars like Pauline Jones, who articulate the significance of building trust and allowing humanitarian aid to flow into war-torn regions. By demanding that our leaders prioritize these values in their discussions, we can influence the direction of U.S. foreign policy to be more aligned with humanitarian principles instead of merely strategic interests.
Moreover, it is imperative to hold our representatives accountable to ensure that they do not conflate political expediency with genuine concern for human rights. The Trump administration's previous interactions with Zelenskyy, particularly the condescending remarks made during their last meeting, serve as a stark reminder of how power dynamics can distort diplomatic relations. We must advocate for a more respectful and equitable approach to international diplomacy that recognizes the dignity of all parties involved. This means calling out any attempts to diminish Ukraine's legitimate security concerns in favor of an overarching geopolitical strategy that may prioritize U.S.-Russia relations over the welfare of the Ukrainian people.
Finally, as we navigate these complex political waters, we should also engage with our communities and educate ourselves and others about the nuances of foreign policy. Hosting discussions, sharing articles, and amplifying credible voices that advocate for a humanitarian approach to international relations can help shift public perception. By fostering a well-informed electorate that recognizes the intricacies of peace negotiations, we can better position ourselves to influence political discourse and ensure that future leaders are held to a higher standard—one that emphasizes diplomacy, empathy, and a commitment to human rights above all. It is only through collective action and informed advocacy that we can shape a foreign policy that truly reflects our values as a nation.
The recent meeting between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, as well as discussions with Russian President Putin, raises important questions about the future of peace in Ukraine and the role of citizens in advocating for a just resolution. Here are some actionable steps individuals can take to influence the conversation around peace negotiations and humanitarian support:
### 1. **Educate Yourself and Others** - **Read up on the Conflict**: Understand the complexities of the Ukraine-Russia conflict, its historical roots, and current dynamics. Books, documentaries, and reputable online resources can provide valuable insights. - **Host Informational Sessions**: Organize community discussions or online webinars to share knowledge about the importance of a ceasefire versus a peace agreement.
### 2. **Advocate for Humanitarian Aid** - **Support Humanitarian Organizations**: Contribute to or volunteer for organizations working on the ground in Ukraine, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) or Doctors Without Borders (Médecins Sans Frontières). - **Promote Fundraising Initiatives**: Start or participate in fundraising efforts to support humanitarian aid.
### 3. **Engage with Elected Officials** - **Write to Your Representatives**: Express your concerns regarding the peace negotiations and urge them to prioritize a ceasefire followed by a comprehensive peace agreement. Sample message: ``` Subject: Urgent Call for Peace in Ukraine
Dear [Representative's Name],
I am writing to express my concern regarding the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. It is imperative that the U.S. administration supports a ceasefire to halt the violence and provide humanitarian aid to those affected. I urge you to advocate for a comprehensive peace agreement that addresses the root causes of this conflict.
Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter.
Sincerely, [Your Name] [Your Address] [Your Email] ```
- **Contact Information for Elected Officials**: - **Senator Chuck Schumer**: - Email: schumer.senate.gov/contact/email-chuck - Office Address: 780 Third Ave, New York, NY 10017 - **Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez**: - Email: ocasiocortez.house.gov/contact - Office Address: 1651 Third Ave, 23rd Floor, New York, NY 10128
### 4. **Sign and Share Petitions** - **Create or Sign Petitions**: Use platforms like Change.org to create or sign petitions advocating for a ceasefire and humanitarian support. For example: - Petition Title: “Demand Immediate Ceasefire in Ukraine” - Link: [Change.org](https://www.change.org) - **Share Petitions on Social Media**: Use your social media platforms to raise awareness and gather support for these petitions.
### 5. **Participate in Peaceful Protests** - **Join Local Rallies**: Look for or organize peaceful demonstrations that call for peace in Ukraine and express solidarity with those affected by the conflict. - **Connect with Advocacy Groups**: Reach out to organizations focused on peacebuilding and conflict resolution to collaborate on events.
### 6. **Engage in Dialogue** - **Talk to Friends and Family**: Discuss the importance of peace negotiations and humanitarian aid to raise awareness within your social circles. - **Utilize Social Media**: Share articles, comment on posts, and engage in conversations about the situation in Ukraine to foster broader understanding and action.
### 7. **Support Media Literacy** - **Promote Responsible Journalism**: Encourage others to seek out reputable news sources and be critical of misinformation regarding the Ukraine conflict. - **Contribute to Local Media**: Write letters to the editor or opinion pieces in local newspapers emphasizing the importance of peace talks and humanitarian considerations.
### Conclusion In a time of complex international relations and humanitarian crises, individual actions can collectively create significant pressure for diplomatic solutions. By advocating for humanitarian aid, engaging with representatives, and raising awareness, we can play an active role in promoting peace in Ukraine. Each effort, no matter how small, contributes to a larger movement for justice and compassion in global affairs.