On October 22, 2025, President Donald Trump welcomed NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte to the White House for a high-stakes meeting, just days after sitting down with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The timing of this diplomatic gathering was anything but coincidental—tensions in Ukraine were once again surging, with a large-scale Russian drone attack killing at least six people and injuring 18 more in Kyiv, the country’s embattled capital. The attack, which targeted Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, was a stark reminder of the stakes at play as leaders huddled in Washington to plot a possible path to peace.
According to Fox News, the White House meeting was set for 4 p.m. local time, less than a week after Trump’s Oval Office session with Zelenskyy. The backdrop was tense: the United States was in the throes of a government shutdown, now entering its 22nd day, with lawmakers unable to break the deadlock and resume funding for federal agencies. Yet, with the world watching, Trump and Rutte’s agenda was dominated by the urgent question of Ukraine’s future and the prospects for ending Russia’s relentless war.
Rutte’s trip to Washington was not a spur-of-the-moment decision. As reported by The New York Times, the NATO chief said he initiated the meeting after what he described as Trump’s “enormous success in Gaza,” referring to a recently brokered ceasefire in the Middle East. “I was texting with the president after an enormous success in Gaza, and we said, ‘Hey, let’s have a meeting in Washington to discuss how we now can deliver his vision of peace in Ukraine,’” Rutte told reporters on Capitol Hill. He added, “I have total confidence in President Trump. He’s the only one who can get this done.”
The confidence Rutte expressed in Trump’s ability to broker peace was echoed in his remarks to lawmakers. “He’s the only one who can get this done,” Rutte insisted, signaling his belief that Trump’s approach—however unconventional—might be the key to unlocking a durable solution to the war in Ukraine. The Dutch leader’s visit was also a chance to reinforce NATO’s ongoing support for Ukraine, which has included the supply of military equipment and other forms of assistance since Russia’s invasion in 2022.
But the optimism in Washington was tempered by new realities on the ground. The Russian drone attack that coincided with the meeting was aimed squarely at crippling Ukraine’s power grid, a tactic Moscow has employed repeatedly in an effort to sap Ukrainian resistance. In response, Ukraine’s army general staff announced that it had struck a Russian chemical plant with British-made missiles. The plant, which produced gunpowder, explosives, and ammunition, was considered a critical asset for the Russian military.
Trump’s meeting with Rutte also came on the heels of a flurry of diplomatic activity. Just days earlier, the president had spoken by phone with Russian leader Vladimir Putin, and there had been plans for a second Trump-Putin summit in Budapest. However, those plans were abruptly shelved after Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov failed to reach agreement during a call on Monday. As a senior U.S. official told Fox News, “Secretary Rubio and Foreign Minister Lavrov had a productive call. Therefore an additional in-person meeting between the Secretary and Foreign Minister is not necessary and there are no plans for President Trump to meet with President Putin in the near future.”
In the days leading up to the White House meeting, Trump had made headlines for his evolving stance on supporting Ukraine militarily. According to Fox News, he told Zelenskyy he was not planning to provide Ukraine with long-range Tomahawk missiles—a decision that reportedly prompted Rutte’s urgent trip to Washington. Trump himself explained his reasoning to reporters: “I would much rather have them not need Tomahawks. I would much rather have the war be over to be honest, because we’re in it to get the war over.”
Trump’s approach to the conflict has been marked by a willingness to challenge established positions. In September, he briefly suggested that Ukraine could regain territory lost to Russia, but by October, he reverted to a more cautious line. “They can negotiate something later on down the line,” Trump said. “But I said cut and stop at the battle line. Go home. Stop fighting, stop killing people.” This shift reflected a hard-nosed pragmatism, one that prioritized halting the bloodshed over territorial ambitions—at least for the time being.
Meanwhile, Ukraine’s aspirations for NATO membership have remained a sticking point in peace negotiations. European leaders, including Rutte, have joined Zelenskyy in pushing for security guarantees as a deterrent to future Russian aggression. Trump, however, has routinely ruled out NATO membership for Ukraine, a demand that aligns with Moscow’s insistence that Kyiv never join the alliance. Russia’s list of prerequisites for peace has also included territorial concessions—another bitter pill for Ukrainians who have fought fiercely to reclaim their land.
Despite the apparent stalemate, Rutte’s visit underscored NATO’s commitment to supporting Ukraine and seeking a diplomatic resolution. In August, he and other European leaders worked alongside Zelenskyy to advance peace talks. Trump’s message at the time was that European nations would shoulder the bulk of the burden in providing Ukraine with security guarantees, a stance that has both reassured and frustrated allies depending on their perspective.
For his part, Trump has recently cast doubt on Ukraine’s ability to defeat Russia outright. “They could still win it. I don’t think they will, but they could still win it,” he told reporters, striking a tone that was both realistic and, perhaps, intentionally provocative. The president’s skepticism has fueled debate in Washington and beyond about the best path forward, with some urging continued military support for Ukraine and others pushing for a negotiated settlement—even if it means painful compromises.
All this played out as the U.S. government remained partially shuttered, a reminder that even as global crises unfold, domestic politics can intrude in unexpected ways. For now, the world waits to see whether the flurry of diplomacy in Washington will yield tangible progress—or whether the war in Ukraine will continue to grind on, with devastating consequences for those caught in the crossfire.
As the dust settles on another round of high-level talks, one thing is clear: the road to peace in Ukraine is as complex and fraught as ever, with no easy answers in sight.
