Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky are expected to meet in the United States this weekend, and the power imbalance framing the talks is already raising serious concerns about the direction of any so-called “peace plan” for Ukraine.
Ahead of the meeting, Trump publicly signaled that he has no intention of backing Ukraine’s proposal unless it aligns with his own agenda. Speaking to Politico, Trump bluntly declared that Zelensky “doesn’t have anything” until Trump approves it — a remark that many observers see as less diplomacy and more political dominance over a country fighting for its survival.
Zelensky, by contrast, has taken a far more measured and responsible tone. He told reporters that Ukraine’s 20-point peace plan is “90% ready” and emphasized that progress comes through sustained dialogue and serious negotiations, not impulsive soundbites. According to Zelensky, the upcoming talks will focus on long-term security guarantees, the status of occupied territories in eastern Ukraine, and the fate of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant — Europe’s largest — which has been under Russian occupation since early in the war.
What’s especially troubling is Trump’s repeated suggestion that he expects talks with Vladimir Putin to “go good,” echoing a familiar pattern from his presidency. Despite earlier high-profile meetings — including an in-person summit in Alaska — Trump has previously failed to secure any tangible progress toward ending Russia’s illegal invasion. At that summit, Ukraine wasn’t even mentioned during the joint press conference, underscoring how sidelined Kyiv’s interests can become when Trump prioritizes optics over substance.
Zelensky has made clear that Ukraine’s peace framework would involve four parties: Ukraine, the United States, Russia, and Europe. That multilateral approach reflects the reality that European security is directly at stake. Trump’s rhetoric, however, suggests a preference for back-channel deals and strongman diplomacy — a style that has historically benefited authoritarian leaders while weakening democratic allies.
As this meeting approaches, the contrast couldn’t be sharper. One leader is seeking concrete security guarantees and international accountability after years of war crimes and occupation. The other continues to center himself as the sole decision-maker, while openly signaling warmth toward the aggressor.
If peace in Ukraine is to be real and lasting, it cannot be dictated by ego, approval games, or nostalgia for failed past diplomacy. It must be grounded in international law, Ukrainian sovereignty, and unwavering support for democracy — principles that have too often been treated as optional in Trump-style foreign policy.
Comments
Post a Comment