After a whirlwind of high-stakes diplomacy, the quest for peace in Ukraine remains as fraught and uncertain as ever. In the past week, U.S. President Donald Trump, Russian President Vladimir Putin, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky have all taken center stage in a flurry of meetings and statements that have both raised hopes and highlighted the deep divisions that persist after more than three years of war.
According to Reuters, the latest twist in the saga came during a summit in Alaska, where Trump and Putin met face-to-face. In a notable shift, sources familiar with Kremlin thinking told Reuters that Putin has narrowed his territorial demands, now focusing primarily on the eastern Donbas region rather than the four Ukrainian provinces Russia previously sought to annex—Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson. The Kremlin is reportedly willing to freeze the current frontlines in Zaporizhia and Kherson, and even hand back small portions of Kharkiv, Sumy, and Dnipropetrovsk regions as part of a potential deal. However, Moscow remains adamant that Ukraine must fully withdraw from the parts of Donbas it still controls, renounce any ambitions to join NATO, and accept strict neutrality—demands that Kyiv has consistently rejected.
Putin’s wish list doesn’t stop there. He also wants a legally binding pledge from NATO not to expand further east, limits on the Ukrainian military, and an agreement that no Western troops will ever set foot in Ukraine as peacekeepers. As Reuters put it, “Putin is sticking, too, to his previous demands that Ukraine give up its NATO ambitions and for a legally binding pledge from the U.S.-led military alliance that it will not expand further eastwards, as well as for limits on the Ukrainian army and an agreement that no Western troops will be deployed on the ground in Ukraine as part of a peacekeeping force.”
Trump, for his part, has taken a strikingly hands-off approach. As reported by The Guardian, the U.S. president has told advisers that he intends to let Putin and Zelensky meet bilaterally without his direct participation—at least initially. “I just want to see what happens at the meeting. They're in the process of setting it up and we'll see what happens,” Trump said in a phone interview with talk show host Mark Levin on August 19. The White House has characterized this as a “wait and see” approach, with no shortlist of possible locations for the meeting and little sign of imminent progress. Administration officials told The Guardian that Trump would only consider hosting a trilateral summit after the two leaders have met on their own, though doubts remain as to whether that will even occur.
Despite his campaign trail bravado—Trump once claimed he could end the war in 24 hours—the president has lately admitted that brokering peace is far more complex than he anticipated. After a round of meetings at the White House with Zelensky and European leaders on August 18, Trump initiated steps toward a bilateral Putin-Zelensky summit. He followed up with a 40-minute call to Putin, after which both sides agreed to appoint senior negotiators for direct talks. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte expressed optimism that a meeting could happen within two weeks, but as of now, there’s no clear timetable.
Security guarantees for Ukraine have emerged as a central sticking point. Zelensky and his European allies are insistent that any peace deal must include robust mechanisms to prevent a renewed Russian invasion. Trump has dangled the possibility of U.S. security guarantees, but has categorically ruled out sending American troops to Ukraine—a position confirmed by White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt on August 20. “U.S. boots will not be on the ground in Ukraine,” Leavitt stated. “But we can certainly help in the coordination, and perhaps provide other means of security guarantees to our European allies.” Instead, U.S. assistance might come in the form of intelligence or air support, but not direct military involvement.
Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy, added another layer of intrigue during a CNN interview, claiming that Putin had agreed to let the U.S. offer Ukraine security guarantees akin to NATO’s Article 5 on collective defense. “We were able to achieve the following concession: that the United States could offer Article 5-like protection, which is one of the main reasons why Ukraine wants to join NATO,” Witkoff said. Yet, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov quickly muddied the waters, suggesting that Russia itself should be one of Ukraine’s security guarantors—a proposal the White House has privately mocked. Lavrov explained, “The Ukrainian side proposed, and our delegation then agreed, to develop security guarantees that would include all permanent members of the UN Security Council – that is, Russia, the People's Republic of China, the United States, France and the United Kingdom.”
For Ukraine, these assurances are non-negotiable. Zelensky has made it clear, both publicly and in private talks, that his government will not lay down arms without concrete, long-term guarantees from both Europe and the U.S. He wrote on August 16, “Security must be guaranteed reliably and in the long term, with the involvement of both Europe and the U.S.” To that end, Zelensky has outlined a plan to purchase $90 billion in American weapons through Europe, as well as for the U.S. to buy drones from Ukraine, though it remains unclear if this is part of the arms deal Trump announced last month.
Yet, the gulf between the parties remains wide. As The Washington Post reported on August 20, despite the recent flurry of summits and high-level meetings, the Kremlin has signaled little real movement in its position. Moscow’s reluctance to compromise on key issues—especially the status of occupied territories and the nature of security guarantees—underscores the formidable challenges facing Trump’s peace efforts. The Washington Post highlighted that “the Kremlin signaled little change in its position regarding Ukraine,” and that Trump faces serious obstacles in negotiating a peace deal.
Meanwhile, Trump’s own approach has been inconsistent. Earlier in the week, he boasted about the “very successful” meetings with Putin and Zelensky, despite widespread criticism over his decision to invite Putin to Alaska. But just days later, he reversed course, telling Mark Levin that it would be better for Russia and Ukraine to meet without him. “I had a very successful meeting with President Putin. I had a very successful meeting with President Zelenskiy. And now I thought it would be better if they met without me, just to see. I want to see what goes on. You know, they had a hard relationship, very bad, very bad relationship,” Trump said. He left open the possibility of stepping in later if necessary, adding, “And now we’ll see how they do and, if necessary, and it probably would be, but if necessary, I’ll go and I’ll probably be able to get it close.”
On the ground, the human toll continues to mount. The United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine reports that at least 13,883 civilians have been killed since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022. July saw the highest monthly civilian casualty count since the conflict began, with 67 killed and 209 injured.
As the world waits for the next move, one thing is clear: the path to peace in Ukraine is riddled with obstacles, shifting positions, and hard choices. Whether the latest round of diplomacy can bridge the gap remains to be seen, but for now, the fate of Ukraine hangs in the balance—caught between the ambitions of Moscow, the caution of Washington, and the steadfastness of Kyiv.
