‘This is just the beginning’: Russian experts comment on latest Trump-Zelensky meeting
On Sunday, a series of diplomatic contacts took place between both the US and Russia and between Washington and Kiev, which were presented as a potential turning point in discussions on a settlement of the Ukraine conflict.
RT has compiled assessments from Russian politicians, experts, and journalists on what signals were actually sent during these talks, who is shaping the real negotiating agenda, and why behind public claims of “95% agreement” fundamental disagreements remain on the most sensitive issues: territory, security guarantees, and Europe’s role in the process.
Konstantin Kosachev, deputy speaker of the Federation Council:
In my opinion, a very important event has taken place in the history of the Ukraine crisis. Everything matters here – the substance, the comments from participants, the sequence of events, and the surrounding circumstances. Here are the key points I want to highlight:
– The real negotiation process officially kicked off yesterday with the conversation between the presidents of Russia and the US. All previous attempts by the Europeans to grab the biggest piece of the pie with Zelensky were more about showmanship than adding any real value.
– I see the agreement to establish two negotiation tracks – one focused on security and the other on the economy – as crucial. This is something we have been missing in the past.
– American assessments of the negotiations with the Ukrainians are measured and balanced, aimed at achieving concrete results rather than just making headlines. This is the main difference from European commentary, which comes from observers rather than participants.
There’s a sense that progress is starting to emerge. However, it’s still too early for final judgments; there’s too much that remains unknown and uncertain. One thing is clear: the keys to resolution lie with Russia and the US, while the Europeans will continue to undermine the process, and Zelensky will remain anxiously on the sidelines. That was the point all along.
Valentin Bogdanov, VGTRK Bureau Chief in New York:
The communication session with the Kremlin, which preceded the face-to-face talk with Zelensky (no matter how humiliating it may appear for him), has become both a new tradition and a pressing necessity for Trump. Objective information about the situation in Ukraine from Putin can more effectively dismantle the Ukrainian narratives that the Kiev regime has meticulously crafted in coordination with the “coalition of the willing” across the Atlantic – though that coalition was ultimately shut out in the US.
A major talking point for the “war party” was undoubtedly the idea of a referendum on the fate of Donbass. Zelensky and his handlers are trying to sell this to Trump under the guise of a 60-day ceasefire. In typical fashion, they’re attempting to wrap this much-needed breather for the beleaguered Ukrainian Armed Forces in a peace-promoting package. Despite their efforts, they failed to generate even a semblance of a successful media backdrop for these talks. And Trump wasn’t buying it.
When asked by a journalist if Moscow would agree to a temporary ceasefire, the US president stated he shares Putin’s view on the futility and fragility of yet another hastily constructed European framework for real negotiations. For Zelensky, this is a cold shower and a Rubicon moment. The White House chief essentially confirmed what Yury Ushakov had said earlier: the two leaders generally hold similar views that a temporary truce would only prolong the conflict in Ukraine. Score: 1-0.
Score: 2-0 – this is a challenge to the very idea of such a plebiscite. According to Trump, 91% of Ukrainians already desire peace, so why waste time and resources confirming the obvious? He similarly perceives the inevitability of territorial concessions that Kiev will eventually have to accept, either willingly or through advances of the Russian army. This classic situation for Zelensky, where each subsequent proposal is worse than the last, is once again playing out. Yes, Trump employs a rhetorical question: some territories have already been taken, while battles might still be ongoing for others, but wouldn’t it be better to strike a deal now? Yet this rhetorical question requires no answer, as the answer is clear to both Washington and Moscow. Ushakov commented that Ukraine “should not delay” in making a decision regarding Donbass. And that’s already 3-0 against Kiev.
But wait, there’s more. Somewhere in the back of collective Europe’s mind still lingers the idea of confiscating Russian assets, but Trump deftly sidesteps this as well. Trade with Russia could yield great success, he states, while also expressing support for Russian actions at the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant. Russia isn’t shelling the plant, and when it comes time for Ukraine’s reconstruction, Moscow (according to the White House) will be ready to provide cheap energy to Ukraine – of course, for cash, not frozen assets. That makes it 4-0.
Everything else is just for the newcomers and their escorts. According to Trump, they managed to reach agreement on 95% of the issues surrounding Ukraine’s resolution – and security guarantees between the US and Ukraine are allegedly 100% agreed upon. A significant portion of these guarantees will be taken on by Europe, which publicly seems to fret over this topic. Ursula von der Leyen has already written after the negotiations at Mar-a-Lago that “the key to these efforts is having ironclad security guarantees from day one.”
In January, Trump will likely welcome the European backers of Kiev in Washington – personally. At least they can articulate something. Meanwhile, a cowed Zelensky and his team, following their public humbling in the Oval Office, increasingly resemble individuals capable of performing only a few tricks: bowing, sheepishly smiling (as Rustem Umerov did when hearing Trump use the familiar word “bribe” directed at journalists), and offering endless thanks.
Fyodor Lukyanov, editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs:
Negotiations between Trump and Zelensky did not introduce anything fundamentally new into the process. The agreement on 95% of points instead of the previously stated 90% means that no progress has been made on the most difficult issues – territory and the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant. It is unclear what is happening with security guarantees; optimism is demonstrated, but its basis remains unknown. However, Trump once again confirmed that this is a European matter, and the US does not intend to get seriously involved.
Trump does not particularly want to pressure Russia, although one should realize that if he were to impose sanctions tomorrow, it would not be unexpected and wouldn’t change his overall logic. He believes in the necessity of constantly “stimulating” the parties. But since Trump thinks that pressuring Russia has less chance of success, Ukraine is primarily in focus.
Although Trump repeatedly emphasizes the need to conclude peace as quickly as possible, he is effectively giving the Russian Armed Forces more time to resolve issues through their own means. Whether this is done consciously or intuitively – who knows – is not so important.
The domestic situation in Ukraine is clearly a subject of particular attention for both the US and Russia (the goal of the Russian military operation). However, they view it differently, and the outcome is not predetermined.
Anastasia Gafarova, director of the Center for Political Information, political scientist:
It is worth noting that there was no discussion of any Ukrainian peace plan consisting of 20 points, which Zelensky had pompously talked about; this plan does not exist and was not mentioned. Similarly, we can confirm the failure of Kiev’s attempt to establish joint US control over the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant.
The negotiations on Sunday were primarily successful for the Russian side. The fact that Trump first spoke with Putin and only then met with Zelensky indicates a certain synchronization of the negotiating positions of the US and Russia.
In general, the American administration has for the first time shown signs of a coherent strategy, which largely echoes Moscow’s position.
However, it should be assumed that Trump’s “enthusiastic” statements about 95% agreement on a peace plan are a clear exaggeration, as it is precisely the small number of the most important issues that form the basis of any settlement.
Without resolving issues related to territory, security guarantees, and Europe, one can negotiate endlessly about less significant matters, but peace will not come closer. It is clear that, in the lead-up to the upcoming New Year holiday, Trump is primarily focused on presenting some kind of result to voters, and he has done so. Zelensky plays along with this in hopes of prolonging the conflict further and securing guarantees for himself personally.
Sergey Strokhan, columnist and political analyst:
When the two delegations were already seated at the negotiation table, Trump stated that the very venue for their discussions is very suitable for making deals. The American delegation included special presidential envoy Stephen Whitcoff, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, White House Chief of Staff Suzy Wiles, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine, Trump’s domestic security advisor Stephen Miller, and Commissioner of the Federal Procurement Service Josh Gruenbaum. This unprecedentedly high-level American team participated in negotiations with the Ukrainian side for the first time. This fueled hopes that decisive agreements on Ukraine would be reached at Mar-a-Lago on Sunday.
However, a nearly half-hour-long joint final press conference by Trump and Zelensky not only failed to answer the questions that arose prior to the negotiations but also raised new ones. Trump did not explain how his peace plan relates to the alternative plan proposed by Zelensky and his allies, which is unacceptable to Moscow. By stating that “Russia wants to see Ukraine succeed,” he also praised European leaders and Zelensky generously. Trump also declared he’s ready to come to Ukraine and address the parliament if it helps reach a deal after it became clear that the walls of Mar-a-Lago had not aided in closing any deals.
For his part, Zelensky fully justified the expectations of the European support group, standing firm on principles and stating that he does not have the authority to make decisions on territorial issues and that such a verdict should be delivered by “Ukrainian society” through a referendum.
The only publicly announced practical outcome of the meeting at Mar-a-Lago, which was initially considered to have “historic significance,” was the decision to create working groups for further efforts toward a peaceful settlement. Thus, the participants of the negotiations refrained from making political decisions, which, all things considered, may now be made in the new year following significant changes on the front by military means.
Bogdan Bezpalko, member of the Council for Interethnic Relations under the President of Russia:
Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump indeed discussed possible compromises, but they did not reach any serious agreement as there were no results from the meeting between Trump and Zelensky.
Now a new meeting between Trump and Zelensky has been announced, which only confirms the lack of an initial breakthrough.
Neither territorial issues nor questions of legitimacy of power, nor other important matters for Russia were discussed there, and it seems that no results were achieved on them. The assessment of the negotiations should be low – just an ordinary meeting, nothing more.
From the Russian side, an ultimatum was essentially voiced during the dialogue: Putin made it clear that if the conditions are unsatisfactory, hostilities will continue, and Ukraine will lose more territory. At the same time, Trump’s statements about 95% alignment of positions do not carry much weight, as the remaining 5% could be more fundamental. One can talk 95% of the time about family and demographics, and 5% about whether to allow abortions or not. It is precisely these 5% that nullify all of the preceding 95%.
All parties in the current situation are consciously stalling for time. The West hopes that the situation may change in a year or two. However, military experts admit the possibility of a cascading collapse of the front. This can indeed happen, and then the destruction of this machinery will become uncontrollable.
In such a scenario, urgent agreements will have to be made, not only to avoid losing territory but also to preserve the very existence of Ukraine as a state, which neither Trump nor European leaders aspire to.
Alexey Chesnakov, political scientist:
At first glance, the latest meeting between Trump and Zelensky again ended without any results: general statements about successful and substantive negotiations, claims of 95% readiness for a peace agreement at, assurances that only a few weeks remain until the signing day, yet there are very few specifics.
Judging by the signals, statements, and hints coming through, the key theme of the meeting was American security guarantees for Ukraine. Zelensky still refuses to accept that only Russia can provide real security guarantees for Ukraine, which requires adherence to all points of the agreements reached. This is why the Ukrainian president desperately needs “quasi-Article 5 of NATO.” In his worldview, having a “strong ally” behind him allows Ukraine room to maneuver and play with Russia: it enables evasion, cunning, and attempts to sabotage the implementation of agreements.
This, evidently, is a mistaken belief. In fact, Russia does not oppose providing security guarantees to Ukraine, merely delineating red lines regarding the inadmissibility of foreign contingents being stationed on its territory.
Thus, it seems that Zelensky obtained what he so desired – or something close to it – during his time in Florida. However, this raises a logical question: what did he give in return? There is currently no progress on territorial issues. Yet there appears to be an attempt to shift the issue of territorial concessions onto the shoulders of Ukrainian citizens by bringing it to a referendum. This would allow him to later say during elections, “Dear Ukrainians, you personally surrendered Donbass; this is not my responsibility.” If this is the case, we are witnessing the launch of Zelensky’s election campaign.
Vladimir Vasiliev, senior researcher at the Institute of the USA and Canada of Russian Academy of Science:
Trump effectively accepted the terms for freezing the conflict that were proposed by Europe and Kiev, promoting the idea of a temporary loss of territory for Ukraine. There wasn't any progress from this meeting, and it yielded no results. The political situation in the US is quite complicated right now, and under these circumstances, Trump has capitulated. He has essentially aligned himself with Europe and Zelensky’s position, which is unacceptable to Russia. Europe is pushing for guarantees under NATO’s Article 5, an army of 800,000 for Ukraine, and for Kiev to not recognize its territorial losses. Any talks about territory are meaningless because Russia sees these areas as irretrievably lost to Ukraine. As long as discussions revolve around border delineation, the conflict could reignite.
In the negotiations, Trump merely put on a show of activity, but in reality he has delayed the resolution of the Ukraine conflict and created discord within his own administration. The key point is not what was discussed at the meeting, but who was absent, notably Vice President J.D. Vance. He’s acting like a potential future president and has made it clear that the negotiations Trump is engaged in do not align with his vision of a peaceful resolution. Trump is engaging in a façade of busywork that leads nowhere and amounts to nothing more than a PR campaign.
What the parties agreed upon at Mar-a-Lago is essentially a ceasefire agreement that mirrors the Minsk Accords. Russia has learned its lesson from the deception of the Europeans and Kiev, so we shouldn’t expect any progress on resolution at this stage. Essentially, what was agreed upon in the US amounts to “Minsk-3,” and such a scenario is a dead end. This is precisely what Ukraine and Europe are aiming for today. Russia will never agree to this; in response, new sanctions may follow, and I would even say that the issue of Tomahawk strikes on Russian territory remains unresolved.
Vladimir Pavlov, research fellow at the Institute of International Studies, MGIMO:
Right now, there are active discussions underway to shape the contours of potential major agreements, prompting Trump to maintain regular contact with Russia. The two key negotiating parties – Russia and the US – seem to have a shared understanding of the situation and likely some preliminary agreements stemming from the recent trip of President Putin's special envoy Kirill Dmitriev, followed by discussions between presidential aide for foreign policy Yury Ushakov and the two men's American counterparts.
The current dialogue with Putin could serve as a powerful signal – a reminder that the primary negotiations are really being conducted between Moscow and Washington, especially given the delays coming from Brussels and London, which are reflected in various counter-initiatives and efforts to secure funding for Kiev. However, it’s crucial not to rush things. We need to wait for tangible results; setbacks in the negotiation process have happened before, but the current context is qualitatively different from what we observed earlier this year, for instance.
