On August 18, 2025, a high-profile delegation of key European leaders arrived at the White House for meeting with U.S. president Donald Trump and Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky. The delegation comprised of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, Finnish President Alexander Stubb, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte.
The sitting took place just days after Trump’s summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska. Although both meetings have been historic and yielded a working proposal for securing peaceful settlement of Russia-Ukraine war, but tangible progress is yet to take place.
In order to fully comprehend these recent developments, it is important to get a brief overview of peace efforts undertaken by U.S. and Europe in recent months. Earlier in February, Trump suggested that Washington might not be interested in extending security guarantee to Ukraine, sparking concerns within its European allies. During a heated meeting in White House with Zelensky, Trump proposed granting the U.S. access to Ukraine’s mineral and hydrocarbon deposits to compensate the military aid Washington has provided to Kyiv so far in war against Russia.
He also accused Zelensky to be ungrateful for U.S. support and for gambling with World War III. European leaders, surprised by such rapid turn of U.S. stance after Biden administration, organized collective meeting of political leadership and put forth the idea of “coalition of willing.” This coalition planned to deploy land, air, and naval forces for safeguarding Ukraine’s territorial integrity against Russian aggression, and extend support for rebuilding the destroyed infrastructure of country. But despite giving political statements no considerable progress was observed to actually materialize this “coalition of willing.”
In March 2025, U.S. suggested a 30-day ceasefire proposal. But Russia only agreed to include energy infrastructure and the Black Sea in ceasefire. The proposal didn’t last long as both antagonists continue to attack each other at any target of opportunity. In months of May and June, several rounds of direct Russia-Ukraine peace talks took place in Turkiye’s capital, Istanbul, but failed to secure any peace deal. Only considerable progress of these talks was the prisoner exchange agreement between Russia and Ukraine.
Read More: Russia’s Geopolitical Turn Post-Ukraine War
With this background, historical meeting between Trump and Putin took place in Alaska. When Putin reached the meeting ground, his motorcade drove through a column of U.S. F-22 Raptor stealth fighter aircraft and AH-64D Apache gunship helicopters. Upon shaking hand with Trump, he was greeted with a fly past formation comprising of a B-2 Spirit stealth bomber accompanied by pair of F-35 Lightening stealth aircrafts.
Despite this initial symbolic show of strength, Putin wasn’t flattered and kept his ground against Trump. After meeting, Trump looked on back-foot. He called the meeting a “10 out of 10” and hinted that they were close to a Ukraine deal. Yet, no clear proposal emerged for ceasefire or peaceful settlement. The meeting, however, paved the way for next round of talks with European leadership.
Trump’s meeting with the delegation of European leadership revealed three key takeaways regarding his “revised peace plan.” First, condition of ceasefire will not be imposed as a prerequisite for negotiations. Second, U.S. is willing to provide potential NATO style security commitments to Ukraine once the war is over. And finally, the territorial swap will take place between Russia and Ukraine to ensure war termination and establishment of peace. Only the second point was welcomed by European leaders while remaining both has been viewed with concerns.
The condition of imposing ceasefire before sitting on negotiation table has been pushed by U.S as well as European nations. Only weeks ago, Trump was also insisting on a ceasefire as essential requirement for holding negotiations and ending the war. He even threatened Moscow with sanctions to achieve its compliance. But his new stance strongly reflects Putin’s wishes, given Russia’s relative military advantage in the conflict. European leaders worry that skipping ceasefire would allow Russia to sustain military pressure along the front line during negotiation phase, making it easier for Russian military to re-organize, re-attack, and gain more ground when required.
The second point has been regarded as a welcoming development, considering it represents a striking departure from Trump’s earlier approach. While in February he categorically denied the idea of providing any security umbrella to Ukraine in any capacity. However in recent meeting, he showed a soft stance towards security of Ukraine.
Though Trump didn’t promise any concrete commitments, but he assured Zelensky that “we will give them very good protection,” and did not rule out deployment of U.S. forces on Ukrainian territory. Interestingly, according to Wickoff, Putin also has not shown any objection to this suggestion provided Ukraine is not given the membership of NATO. This potential NATO’s Article-V type pledge can be regarded as major relief for European leaders who have long asked for more tangible U.S. involvement.
Read More: Tourism in Turmoil: How War Reshaped Tourism in Russia, Ukraine, and Europe
The third factor, i.e., the land swaps, is very sensitive and most controversial. Apparently, Putin wants to capture the entire Donetsk and Luhansk – even the Western regions which are not under Russian occupation and are protected by Ukrainian military stronghold. In exchange, Russia is willing for a frozen frontline elsewhere. This suggests that approximately 20 percent Ukrainian territory, currently occupied by Russia, will become part of Russian mainland.
This includes entire Luhansk oblast, Donetsk oblast, Crimea, and a major portion of Zaporizhia oblast and Kherson oblast. Although U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has claimed that Russia might also be giving up some Ukrainian territories it currently occupy. But Russia, according to Putin’s territorial demands, would still achieve overwhelming geographical leverage against Ukraine and even NATO. European NATO allies fear that grant of such “fortress belt” will allow Russia to stage new offenses with significant geographical advantage. In addition, the Black Sea will essentially become Russia’s lake.
For Zelensky, who has fought Russia relentlessly for more than three years against severe odds, accepting such a proposal can yield grave political backlash from Ukrainian public.
In near future, the possibility of Putin and Zelensky first direct meeting since 2022 invasion cannot be ruled out at all. This meeting, followed by a potential trilateral meeting with Trump, is now being pushed by Washington. The coming months will determine whether these proposals advance meaningful peace efforts or merely extend the cycle of failed diplomatic efforts. For now, Ukraine, Russia, Europe, and U.S., exhausted by years long war of attrition, are recalibrating their positions in response to recent developments in hope to achieve the breakthrough and avoid another dead end in the long search for peace.
*The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of TDI.
Ahmad Ibrahim
Ahmad Ibrahim is a Research Associate at Maritime Centre of Excellence, Pakistan Navy War College, Lahore.
