Trump and Zelensky Meet on Ukraine Peace Deal

The Issue

On December 28, 2025, President Donald Trump hosted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at Mar-a-Lago for over three hours of talks aimed at ending the nearly four-year Russia-Ukraine war. Trump declared the sides "closer than ever" to a deal following what he described as an "excellent" phone conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Zelensky indicated that a 20-point framework agreement is roughly 90-95% complete, though Trump offered more cautious estimates. No major breakthroughs were announced.

The proposed peace framework includes several controversial elements. Ukraine would maintain armed forces of approximately 800,000 troops with U.S., NATO, and European security guarantees similar to NATO's Article 5 collective defense commitment. The most contentious issue—described by Trump as "the land"—involves Russian demands for control of Ukraine's Donbas region, including territories Russia does not currently occupy. The proposal reportedly includes provisions for a Ukrainian referendum on ceding disputed territory and establishing a demilitarized "free economic zone" in Donetsk.

This diplomatic push represents a dramatic shift from Biden administration policy, which emphasized unwavering military support for Ukraine until complete withdrawal of Russian forces. Trump campaigned on ending the war quickly, criticizing continued U.S. military aid. The December 28 meeting follows weeks of intensive negotiations involving Trump officials, European leaders, and representatives from both warring nations. After the talks, Trump and Zelensky held a joint call with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and leaders from Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Norway, and Poland, along with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte.

The stakes extend far beyond Ukraine's borders. European leaders view Ukraine's security as integral to Euro-Atlantic stability. Russia's war has killed tens of thousands, displaced millions, and triggered the largest European conflict since World War II. For the United States, the debate encompasses fundamental questions about American global leadership, alliance commitments, defense spending, and the precedent set when authoritarian regimes use military force to seize territory. The emerging peace proposal has sparked intense disagreement about what constitutes acceptable terms for ending the war.

Prioritize Quick Peace Settlement

End the Bloodshed: Prioritize a Swift Settlement

Those prioritizing a quick peace settlement argue that every additional month of war means more deaths, more destruction, and more suffering with diminishing prospects for Ukrainian military victory. From this perspective, the primary goal should be stopping the killing as soon as possible, even if that requires painful territorial compromises. Trump's claim that the sides are "closer than ever" to a deal represents progress toward this urgent objective.

This view emphasizes the human cost of prolonged conflict. Tens of thousands have died, millions have fled their homes, and Ukrainian cities lie in ruins. Continuing the war indefinitely in pursuit of complete Russian withdrawal gambles Ukrainian lives on uncertain military outcomes. Those favoring quick peace argue that saving lives today matters more than holding every kilometer of disputed territory. A flawed peace that ends the killing beats a perfect peace that never comes.

The case for prioritizing swift peace settlement rests on several practical considerations:

• The Reality of Stalemate: Neither side can achieve total victory through military means alone. Russia cannot conquer all of Ukraine, but Ukraine also cannot expel Russia entirely from occupied territories without weapons and support that Western allies are increasingly reluctant to provide indefinitely. Continuing to fight a stalemated war wastes resources and lives without changing the fundamental reality.
• War Fatigue and Sustainability: Western support for Ukraine, while substantial, shows signs of strain. American and European publics increasingly question the costs of unlimited aid. If support wanes before Ukraine achieves military victory, Ukraine will be forced to negotiate from a weaker position. Better to secure reasonable terms now while Trump is engaged and willing to pressure both sides than to fight on until support collapses entirely.
• Reconstruction and Recovery: Every month of continued fighting is a month Ukrainian cities aren't being rebuilt, refugees aren't returning home, and the economy isn't recovering. A peace deal—even an imperfect one—allows Ukraine to begin the massive task of reconstruction. Prolonging the war delays recovery that's already desperately needed.
• Preventing Escalation: The longer the war continues, the greater the risk of dangerous escalation, including potential direct conflict between NATO and Russia. Quick peace reduces these catastrophic risks and allows de-escalation before miscalculation or accident triggers wider war.

Polling shows Americans growing weary of the Ukraine conflict, with questions about costs and commitment duration becoming more prominent. Vice President JD Vance's public pessimism about negotiations—noting that Russia "really wants territorial control of the Donbas" while Ukrainians resist this but "privately acknowledge that they will probably lose Donbas eventually"—reflects a growing sense that compromise is inevitable. Those prioritizing swift peace argue that if territorial concessions are ultimately unavoidable, delaying them only adds to the death toll.

This perspective doesn't celebrate territorial concessions or dismiss their significance. Rather, it accepts that diplomacy requires choosing between imperfect options. Security guarantees for Ukraine, even without NATO membership, combined with substantial military capacity, can deter future Russian aggression better than grinding warfare with uncertain outcomes. The goal is not to reward Putin but to end suffering, create stability, and give Ukraine a viable future—even if that future includes painful territorial losses.

Those favoring quick peace also note that Trump's engagement offers a unique opportunity. His willingness to negotiate with both Putin and Zelensky, combined with his leverage over both parties, may create a brief window for agreement. Zelensky's presence at Mar-a-Lago and his optimistic statements suggest Ukraine recognizes this opportunity. If Trump's attention moves elsewhere or his political capital diminishes, the chance for a negotiated settlement may evaporate, leaving Ukraine facing indefinite conflict without a clear path to victory or peace.

Defend Ukrainian Sovereignty

No Rewards for Aggression: Defend Ukrainian Self-Determination

Those prioritizing Ukrainian sovereignty and self-determination view the proposed peace framework as a dangerous capitulation that rewards Russian aggression and abandons fundamental principles of international law. Leading House Democrats condemned the initial 28-point proposal as "both a policy nightmare and morally bankrupt," warning it gives "aid and comfort to Russia" while pressuring Ukraine to surrender sovereign territory. From this perspective, forcing territorial concessions sets a catastrophic precedent.

This view emphasizes that Ukraine is a democratic nation fighting for its survival against an authoritarian invader. Russia's war represents a fundamental assault on the principle that borders cannot be changed by force—a bedrock of the post-World War II international system. If Putin achieves territorial goals through invasion, it signals to authoritarian regimes worldwide that military conquest succeeds when democracies lack resolve. The response must be unwavering support for Ukraine's right to defend its internationally recognized borders.

The case for defending Ukrainian sovereignty centers on several critical principles and practical concerns:

• Territorial Integrity and International Law: Ukraine's borders were internationally recognized and guaranteed by multiple treaties, including the 1994 Budapest Memorandum in which Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons in exchange for security assurances. Allowing Russia to seize territory violates these agreements and undermines the entire framework of international law. If treaties and borders mean nothing when challenged by military force, the global order collapses into chaos.
• The Dangerous Precedent: Rewarding aggression invites more aggression. If Russia gains territory through invasion of Ukraine, what stops it from next targeting Moldova, Georgia, or the Baltic states? What stops China from believing it can take Taiwan by force, or any powerful nation from bullying weaker neighbors? International security requires that aggression fail, not succeed. Anything less encourages future conflicts.
• Sham Referendums and Coerced Concessions: The proposal includes a Ukrainian referendum on ceding territory to Russia. But holding such a vote while Ukraine is under attack and millions have fled amounts to legitimizing conquest through a democratic façade. People displaced by Russian violence cannot freely vote on whether to accept that violence's results. This is not self-determination but capitulation under duress.
• Security Guarantees Without Substance: Promises of "NATO-like" security guarantees for Ukraine ring hollow without actual NATO membership. If the West won't defend Ukraine now when it's actively fighting Russia, why would Ukraine trust that the West will defend it later when Russia has rebuilt and attacks again? Vague security commitments cannot substitute for the concrete protections of alliance membership.

Polling shows 79 percent of Democrats disapproving of Trump's handling of the war, and Americans overall growing more critical when they learn details about territorial concessions. YouGov surveys indicate that hearing specifics about the peace plan—including land concessions and security arrangements—sours public opinion on Trump's approach. This suggests many Americans instinctively resist rewarding Russian aggression.

Those defending Ukrainian sovereignty also warn about the signal sent to American allies worldwide. If the United States pressures Ukraine into an unfavorable peace after pledging support, what does this tell Taiwan, South Korea, or NATO's eastern members about American reliability? Democratic allies facing authoritarian threats need confidence that American commitments mean something. Abandoning Ukraine undermines American credibility everywhere, making future conflicts more likely as adversaries doubt American resolve.

This perspective acknowledges war's terrible costs but argues that premature peace on Putin's terms merely delays and worsens future conflict. Democrats warned that crippling Ukrainian armed forces through demilitarization provisions would "guarantee another Russian invasion once Moscow rebuilds its forces." A weakened, territorially diminished Ukraine facing an unsatisfied Russia means continued instability, recurring crises, and eventual renewed warfare. True peace requires Russia's defeat and deterrence, not appeasement that emboldens further aggression. The higher immediate cost of supporting Ukraine fully is the lower long-term cost compared to fighting multiple future wars against emboldened authoritarians.

Minimize U.S. Entanglement

Put America First: Avoid Foreign Commitments

Those prioritizing minimizing American entanglement question why the United States is investing diplomatic capital, resources, and credibility in Ukraine at all. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene voiced this frustration bluntly when Trump scheduled meetings with both Zelensky and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu: "Zelensky today. Netanyahu tomorrow. Can we just do America?" This perspective reflects deep skepticism about continued U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts regardless of proposed peace terms.

From this view, the entire Ukraine debate misses the fundamental question: Why is this America's problem? U.S. resources, diplomatic attention, and political energy should focus on domestic crises—immigration, inflation, crime, infrastructure—not mediating European territorial disputes. Trump won the presidency by promising to prioritize American workers and communities, not to play global peacemaker or underwrite European security.

The case for minimizing American entanglement raises several pointed questions about U.S. involvement:

• Avoiding New Alliance Commitments: Security guarantees for Ukraine mean Americans potentially fighting and dying if Russia attacks again. The United States already has extensive treaty commitments through NATO and bilateral alliances. Why add another obligation that could drag America into direct conflict with a nuclear power? Each new commitment overstretches American military resources and increases the risk of being drawn into wars that don't threaten core American interests.
• The Costs of Endless Involvement: Even if a peace deal ends active fighting, Ukraine will require massive reconstruction aid and ongoing security assistance. Who pays these costs? If Trump's framework includes American financial commitments for rebuilding or military support, it represents the same endless foreign spending that many Americans oppose. Taxpayer money should address American needs, not foreign nations' problems.
• Questionable Allies and Aid Accountability: Ukraine ranked among Europe's most corrupt nations before the war, and wartime conditions rarely improve governance. How can Americans trust that aid and commitments will be used properly rather than siphoned off through corruption? The lack of accountability for billions in U.S. aid already provided raises serious questions about further involvement.
• America First Means American Priorities: The president's job is to serve American citizens, not global stability or foreign nations' interests. Energy spent negotiating Ukraine peace is energy not spent on border security, reducing inflation, or addressing crime in American cities. Trump's supporters elected him to focus on America, and his attention to foreign conflicts seems like a distraction from that mandate.

This perspective has created notable tensions within Republican foreign policy circles. When Heritage Foundation staff defected to Mike Pence's new think tank, Pence explicitly criticized Heritage for embracing "isolationism" and shifting support "from President Volodymyr Zelensky to President Vladimir Putin." Traditional conservative foreign policy establishments view this skepticism as dangerous abandonment of American leadership. But those prioritizing minimizing entanglement counter that "leadership" has become code for endless intervention serving elite interests rather than ordinary Americans.

Greene's public criticism of Trump's foreign policy meetings reflects concern that even Trump may be captured by Washington's interventionist consensus. If Trump succeeds in brokering Ukraine peace, does that commit his administration to enforcement and follow-through that contradicts America First principles? Critics of entanglement want Trump focused on domestic priorities—border enforcement, deportations, spending cuts, cultural issues—not hosting foreign leaders and negotiating international security frameworks that create new American obligations.

This view doesn't necessarily oppose peace in Ukraine; it opposes American responsibility for achieving or maintaining it. If Europeans want Ukraine secure, let Europeans provide security guarantees and pay costs. If Ukraine needs reconstruction, international institutions or European nations should fund it. From this perspective, the best Ukraine policy would be announcing that Europe's problems are Europe's to solve, allowing the United States to extract itself from foreign entanglements and focus on American priorities. Every dollar and every ounce of diplomatic effort spent on Ukraine is a dollar and effort not spent making life better for Americans.

Ensure European Security

Continental Stability Depends on Ukraine's Viability

European leaders view the Ukraine negotiations through the lens of continental security, seeing Ukraine's fate as directly tied to European safety and stability. The European Council's December 15, 2025 statement emphasized that "ensuring Ukraine's security, sovereignty, and prosperity" is "integral for wider Euro-Atlantic security," committing to continue increasing pressure on Russia to bring Moscow to negotiate in earnest. European leaders' participation in the December 28 call with Trump and Zelensky—including von der Leyen and leaders from Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Norway, and Poland, along with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte—signals European determination to shape any settlement.

From Europe's perspective, the Ukraine war is not a distant conflict but an immediate existential threat to European security architecture. Russia's invasion shattered assumptions that European borders were permanently settled. If Putin successfully seizes Ukrainian territory through military force, it demonstrates that aggression can work in 21st-century Europe—a lesson that endangers not just Ukraine but NATO's eastern members, including Poland, the Baltic states, and Romania. European support for Ukraine reflects both moral solidarity with a democracy under attack and hard-headed calculation about deterring Russian expansionism that threatens all of Europe.

The European priority of continental security centers on several critical concerns about the peace framework:

• Security Guarantee Credibility and American Reliability: Europeans desperately want to believe promises of robust security guarantees for Ukraine, but European capitals remember Trump's previous threats to withdraw from NATO and his skepticism of Article 5 commitments. If the United States won't reliably defend treaty allies, will it defend Ukraine under a weaker framework? Europeans recognize they must assume primary responsibility for continental security but currently lack the military capacity to deter Russia without American involvement. The credibility of security guarantees depends on American commitment that Europeans doubt.
• Territorial Concessions and Future Russian Demands: Nations that suffered Soviet occupation—Poland, Czech Republic, the Baltic states, Romania—view forced territorial concessions to Russia with alarm informed by history. They remember that appeasing territorial aggression doesn't bring lasting peace; it emboldens authoritarian regimes to demand more. If Ukraine must surrender the Donbas now, what prevents Russia from making additional demands once it rebuilds? European history teaches that partial victories encourage rather than satisfy authoritarian expansion.
• European Agency in Settlement Terms: The initial 28-point framework negotiated between the United States and Russia with minimal European input reminded Europeans of Cold War-era superpower deals made over European heads. While subsequent negotiations included European leaders, the initial approach raised fears of U.S.-Russia grand bargains that sacrifice European interests for bilateral accommodation. Europeans insist on co-equal say in determining Ukraine's fate because European security hangs in the balance.
• Burden-Sharing and European Defense Investment: Europeans acknowledge decades of under-investment in defense, relying on American security guarantees while enjoying peace dividends. Trump's demand that Europe shoulder more Ukraine costs is fair but challenging for European economies facing their own fiscal pressures. However, European leaders increasingly recognize that defending Ukraine and deterring Russian aggression requires European resources, not just American. The question is whether Europeans can scale up quickly enough to provide meaningful security contributions.

Carnegie Endowment analysis noted that most European countries initially denounced the November U.S.-Russia framework as too favorable to Moscow, with Russia's foreign affairs adviser complaining that Ukraine and European allies had "worsened" American proposals by demanding stronger Ukrainian protections. This tension reflects European determination to prevent a peace that leaves Ukraine vulnerable and Russia emboldened while Europe faces ongoing threats.

European leaders face a delicate balancing act. They need Trump's engagement and American security commitments, so alienating him risks losing U.S. support entirely. But they also cannot accept a peace that fundamentally undermines European security by rewarding Russian aggression and leaving Ukraine weak. The peace must be sustainable and just, not simply expedient for American domestic politics. European involvement in negotiations represents efforts to shape outcomes rather than simply react to American-Russian agreements.

Looking ahead, Europeans recognize that any peace deal requires substantial European resources for implementation and enforcement. Whether through security guarantees, reconstruction aid, or military deterrence, Europe will bear significant costs. The question is whether those investments buy genuine security—a Ukraine capable of resisting future Russian pressure and a credible deterrent against further aggression—or merely postpone inevitable renewed conflict. For Europeans, Ukraine's viability as a secure, sovereign state isn't charity; it's a vital national interest affecting continental stability. A peace that leaves Ukraine too weak to survive or Russia too emboldened to remain satisfied threatens European security just as surely as continued war.

Looking Forward

The Trump-Zelensky negotiations reveal fundamental disagreements about priorities and acceptable tradeoffs. Those favoring swift peace emphasize saving lives and ending suffering, even at the cost of territorial concessions. Those defending Ukrainian sovereignty insist on upholding international law and deterring aggression, even if that means prolonged conflict. Those prioritizing minimal U.S. entanglement question why America bears responsibility for European security problems. European leaders view Ukraine's fate as inseparable from continental stability and European safety. These aren't merely tactical disagreements but reflect genuinely different values about what matters most.

The most difficult questions remain unresolved and perhaps unresolvable through logic alone. Can security guarantees without NATO membership credibly deter future Russian aggression? Will territorial concessions satisfy Putin or merely whet his appetite for more? Does American involvement serve American interests or distract from domestic priorities? Can European military capacity develop quickly enough to provide meaningful deterrence? Each perspective makes valid points while highlighting different risks and costs. The "right" answer depends on which outcomes one most fears and which principles one considers non-negotiable.

What seems increasingly clear is that the approach of unlimited support until total Russian withdrawal has ended. The emerging framework, in whatever final form it takes, will involve territorial compromises, security arrangements short of NATO membership, and greater European responsibility for continental defense. Whether this produces lasting peace or merely postpones renewed conflict will depend on factors beyond any peace document's language—Russia's ambitions and capacity, European resolve and resources, American willingness to maintain commitments, and Ukraine's ability to survive as a viable state. The debate over Trump's Ukraine peace efforts ultimately reflects deeper uncertainty about America's global role and the costs we're willing to bear for the international order we helped create.

Recent Articles