SAEDNEWS: News has emerged about efforts to start direct talks between Putin and Zelensky after a Washington meeting focused on Trump, raising questions about whether Trump, who has long criticized current U.S. Ukraine policy, can act as a mediator.
According to Saed News, quoting France 24, the news leaking from Washington about efforts to start direct negotiations between Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky following a meeting centered on Donald Trump has surprised many international observers. This is not the first time Trump’s name has been raised as an influential figure on the future of the Ukraine war, but the fact that he is now at the center of peace talks presents a new narrative of ongoing developments. The main question is whether one should really expect that after two years of bloody and exhausting war, the path for negotiations between Moscow and Kyiv could be smoothed by an individual initiative outside the official power structure, or whether these speculations are mainly for electoral and promotional purposes and are unlikely to lead to lasting peace on the ground.
To better understand the matter, one must look at Trump’s position in the U.S. political scene. Returning as one of the most controversial election candidates with the slogan “Ending the Ukraine War in 24 Hours,” he has consistently taken positions different from the dominant stream in Washington. Trump has repeatedly stated that continuing endless financial and military support for Ukraine is not in America’s interest and that instead, one should consider a swift political agreement. These positions have led to accusations from Democrats of “surrendering to Putin” while simultaneously earning admiration from a war-weary segment of the public, who see him as the only politician raising objections to the costs of war.
Now, the news of a Washington meeting centered on him and the proposal for direct talks between Putin and Zelensky essentially completes the same electoral narrative: Trump presents himself not only as a potential future U.S. president but also as a “peace mediator.” This image appeals to many American voters who are no longer interested in foreign conflicts. But for European allies and even some Washington politicians, the news is a warning bell indicating that, if Trump returns to power, U.S. policy toward Ukraine would change.
Beyond the electoral aspect, it remains to be seen to what extent this initiative is feasible. Will Putin and Zelensky actually agree to sit at a table under Trump’s initiative? Putin has repeatedly stated that he will only negotiate if “field realities” and “border changes” are recognized. Zelensky, throughout the war, has repeatedly emphasized that restoring all occupied territories is Ukraine’s red line. Although signs of a change in his tone have appeared in recent months, no one in Kyiv can openly announce acceptance of losing parts of the country’s territory. In such an atmosphere, bringing both sides together in a joint meeting centered on a figure like Trump seems more like a political show than a real peace process.
On the other hand, Trump’s role as a politician outside official power is also problematic. He currently holds no government position and has no legal authority to negotiate with foreign leaders. Any meeting or dialogue with Putin and Zelensky without coordination with the current U.S. administration could be legally and diplomatically challenging. The Biden administration would likely view such efforts as interference in the country’s foreign policy and respond strongly. Therefore, even if a Washington meeting with Trump takes place, its legitimacy and credibility would be in doubt.
Nevertheless, it should not be overlooked that merely proposing such a possibility indicates a shift in the psychological climate surrounding the Ukraine war. In the early years, any talk of negotiation or compromise with Russia was considered a betrayal of Western values and the Ukrainian people. But now, after two years of attrition and heavy costs, even the idea of Trump mediation is being welcomed by part of public opinion. This shift stems from the West’s fatigue with a war where the prospect of a quick victory has vanished. Citizens in Europe and the U.S. are no longer willing to bear endless economic and military costs. Thus, any voice speaking of peace, even from a controversial politician like Trump, attracts attention.
From Moscow’s perspective, such an initiative could also have appeal. Putin is well aware that Trump holds critical views toward NATO and Western aid to Ukraine. If Trump returns to power or even influences the U.S. political atmosphere in his current position, it benefits Russia. Moscow can use the peace proposal centered on Trump as a propaganda tool to show that the West is retreating from its maximum positions. For Russia, it does not matter whether these negotiations actually result in an agreement; merely putting peace on the agenda and weakening Western unity in support of Ukraine is already a gain for the Kremlin.
In Kyiv, however, the situation is different. Zelensky, who became a national hero with the slogan of absolute resistance and reclaiming all territories, now faces growing domestic and international pressure to find a path toward compromise. Although openly accepting such talks is costly for him, losing Western support would be far more expensive. If he feels that entering a peace process centered on Trump could guarantee U.S. backing, he may ultimately be forced to show flexibility, even if he continues to emphasize maximalist positions publicly.
This situation indicates that recent developments are more a reflection of deep changes in public opinion and the political atmosphere of the West than a product of official government decisions. No one in Brussels or Washington can speak today as in 2022 about “unconditional support until total victory.” Field realities, economic attrition, and internal political competition are all pushing Western leaders toward alternative solutions. In this context, Trump’s name as a peace mediator stands out not because he has real ability to achieve it, but because of its symbolic value: a symbol of shifting discourse from “war to victory” to “war to compromise.”
However, the major risk on this path is instability and uncertainty. If a peace process centered on Trump begins but fails to produce results, it could lead to further frustration and weaken Ukraine’s position in future negotiations. And if it unexpectedly leads to a half-baked agreement, it would likely face strong opposition within Ukraine, as a large segment of the population is still unwilling to accept the loss of territories…
