On Monday, the meeting between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was encouraging, especially as they stood alongside key NATO and European Union leaders in the Oval Office. However, Russian President Vladimir Putin chose this moment to escalate tensions with yet another targeted attack on Ukrainian civilians.
This assault took place in Kharkiv, resulting in the deaths of seven individuals, including a 15-year-old boy and a 1-year-old girl.
While Putin may speak lightly, his actions—along with those of his government—carry significant weight. He’s adept at making it evident, whether at the negotiation table or on the battlefield, that he intends to secure his goals at all costs.
It seems the Trump administration might be perceiving Putin’s maneuvers as a blatant sign of disrespect. The quest for peace in Ukraine remains frustratingly out of reach. Putin insists on complete control over territories occupied by Russia—Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson—while also holding onto Crimea. Zelensky and his European allies firmly rejected these demands.
The threat of harsh sanctions from Team Trump seemed to fade following a failed ceasefire attempt at the Alaska Summit. It’s as if Putin was mocking the situation from a position of power.
The former KGB agent is adept at leveraging these summits to project an image of triumph, despite the White House’s attempts to put a positive spin on events. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov set an interesting tone by showing up in Alaska wearing a grey sweatshirt emblazoned with “CCCP,” the Russian acronym for the former Soviet Union.
Putin’s provocations continued the next day upon arriving in the U.S., where he was greeted not with the expected war crimes arrest that hangs ominously over him from the International Criminal Court but instead with a flashy reception. Alongside Trump, he laid flowers at a memorial for fallen Soviet World War II pilots.
Interestingly, it seemed like Putin was trying to convince Trump that Zelensky was the obstacle to peace, as he didn’t accept the terms Moscow laid out. Yet, as Putin’s forces continued to bomb Ukrainian cities with ballistic missiles and drones, the battle continued to drag on.
Russia’s assaults continue to mount, with evidence of heavy casualties on both sides. The situation is proving increasingly frustrating for Trump, who isn’t nearing any economic agreements with Russia. Trump’s comments have shifted blame towards Zelensky, suggesting he could end the war almost instantly if he chose to. “Just remember how this began,” he seems to imply, pointing to past U.S. foreign policy failures.
Monday’s second summit featuring Zelensky and European leaders was reportedly productive. Leaders like Ursula von der Leyen, NATO’s General Secretary, and various European heads of state came together with Zelensky, forming a united front against Putin that promised “material consequences” for any security threats.
Yet, this scenario feels all too familiar. There have been promises of direct meetings that often don’t pan out. The Russian leader’s invitation to Zelensky to meet in Moscow was met with quick rejection by Ukraine.
As Secretary of State Marco Rubio pointed out, “You’re not going to end the war between Russia and Ukraine without addressing Putin.” It’s a sad reality that few are willing to confront him. The White House appears to be catering to Putin’s whims, giving off a sense of submissiveness.
For Putin, achieving peace involves Ukraine pulling back from Donbas and relinquishing key strategic areas that have stymied Russian advances. It seems that any peace agreement anticipated by the White House is ultimately a mirage.
Trump’s special envoy has downplayed the use of Putin’s language about peace, suggesting such terms often lack substantive commitments.
Ukraine’s history adds weight to its wariness. The Budapest Memorandum of 1994 involved assurances from Russia, the UK, and the U.S. to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty in exchange for giving up nuclear arms. Yet, this agreement failed spectacularly when Russia invaded in 2022. Trust is in short supply; Ukraine needs guarantees laid out in a binding treaty.
Trump, meanwhile, has ruled out sending military support to Ukraine, given that NATO is hesitant to act without U.S. backing.
Amidst the ongoing hope for a peace deal, it seems the circumstances haven’t evolved significantly. Even the simplest assessments recognize that Russia has been strategically preparing for its next moves.
In the end, any agreed-upon security guarantees from Russia won’t halt future aggressions. It’s a hard truth: without addressing Putin directly, the conflict is unlikely to see resolution.
Ultimately, convincing Putin to cease attacks is the key. His calculations appear to disregard human cost entirely.
Perhaps the moment will come when Trump tells Putin, “No!”
