Behind Closed Doors: Questions Linger After White House Negotiations

Source: Author’s Facebook page

The recent White House meeting between Donald Trump, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and several European leaders was meant to signal unity. Instead, it left observers wondering what was said behind closed doors, what was left unsaid, and how the outcomes might reshape transatlantic politics.

Ukraine has been allowed to purchase $100 billion worth of weapons from the US (at European expense), while in return, we promised to supply UAVs for $50 billion. Yet, in a country where drones for the front are mostly purchased by volunteers, this sounds absurd. Are we seriously rushing to sell UAVs to the US as if we had a surplus? And another question: will the US provide us with the necessary electronic components, or will we continue buying Chinese parts through third countries, as we do now?

We are also promised security guarantees similar to NATO’s Article 5. The internet is already buzzing with the phrase “NATO without NATO.” But let me ask: are we convinced that Article 5—“an attack on one is an attack on all”—would work even for NATO members themselves? I have serious doubts. And I fear we may one day see this tested on the example of Latvia or Estonia.

And finally, the issue of territories—territorial concessions or exchanges—is expected to be settled during “Putin–Zelenskyy” negotiations. Pardon me, but is Zelenskyy suddenly a diplomatic genius? We already had experience with “KGB vs. KVN” negotiations, and the results, to put it mildly, were far from convincing. Let me simply remind you that in the three years before the invasion, it was Zelenskyy who bore full responsibility for Ukraine’s foreign policy.

The result is stories about May picnics and kebabs just hours before the Russian invasion, accompanied by excuses such as: “If Ukrainians had been warned about the invasion, they would all have fled instead of defending the country.”

Putin will not agree to simply freeze the front line — he needs something to present to his people as a victory. He will demand territorial concessions, and at Ukraine’s expense. Even the idea of “exchanging Ukrainian territories for Ukrainian territories” would look like nothing but mockery.

In reality, even a freeze of the current front line would amount to a Russian victory. Moscow has already achieved its key strategic goal: establishing a land corridor to Crimea and turning the Sea of Azov into an internal sea. That is the reality.

There are more than enough reasons to cry “Treason!” — but one factor changes the picture entirely: the position of Europe’s leaders. It stands in stark contradiction to everything we have observed before. And this leaves only two possibilities.

Either, Trump managed to extract major concessions from Zelenskyy and presented them to Europe as: “The Ukrainian leader has resigned himself to his fate; protecting him further is pointless.” But if that is the case, one must ask what Europe itself is counting on. Because from now on, the Baltic States, Finland, and Poland will be forced to live under the shadow of a Russian threat for decades. And Moscow, driven by both political and economic pressures, will not take long to grow restless with its appetite for further expansion.

Alternatively, there may be a different scenario — one in which the United States and Europe are each pursuing their agenda, choosing for now not to clash directly, but instead attempting to reach a common understanding. In this case, the outcome of these maneuvers would be a “Putin–Zelenskyy” meeting. And I have already outlined my doubts about the diplomatic abilities of our so-called “Talleyrand from KVN.”

There is also a third possibility: Russia’s economic situation has become so dire that Putin is prepared to accept an unprecedented compromise to end the war, an idea he may have conveyed to Trump during their meeting in Alaska. Trump, in turn, could have presented this to his European partners, who would have welcomed it enthusiastically.

Yet, after years of war, it is difficult to believe in such scenarios.

Should this nevertheless come to pass, it would mean that Russia is allowed to exit the war at precisely the moment when it should be under maximum pressure, and when the chances of defeating it are higher than ever. Instead of a decisive end to the conflict, the result would be a temporary pause, while Moscow secures the Azov coastline. This remains a hypothetical outcome, but one that cannot be ignored.

For now, there are far more questions than answers.

As a reminder, multilateral talks involving US President Donald Trump, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and leaders of key European countries have concluded in Washington. The central topic of the discussions was the prospect of ending the war in Ukraine and launching a new peace process initiated by Washington.

According to Donald Trump, preparations for a historic meeting between Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Russian President Vladimir Putin will begin shortly. The American leader personally contacted the Kremlin after the talks at the White House.

Meanwhile, a meeting between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Russian dictator Vladimir Putin could take place in the coming weeks. According to European diplomatic sources, Hungary is being considered as a potential venue for the talks.

Meanwhile, Russian dictator Vladimir Putin continues to avoid any real guarantees that would prevent a new invasion of Ukraine. Instead, Moscow consistently seeks to destroy Western unity, oust Kyiv from the international support system, and divide the United States and Europe.

Also, follow “Pryamyi” on Facebook, Twitter, Telegram, and Instagram.

• Materials published in the “OPINIONS” section reflect the opinion of the author of the publication, who bears full responsibility for the accuracy of the information.
• The editorial staff of prm.ua may not share the opinions expressed in the author’s material.
• The owner of the webpage in the “OPINIONS” section is the author of the publication.