This is Index's geopolitical column, World Game, where we provide weekly analyses of the most important developments in international politics and conflicts. Analysts help us understand global processes, great power interests, and their impact on world politics.

It is not yet clear what concrete results Monday's White House talks yielded. However, all indications are that Ukraine, like the United States, has agreed that peace talks will not be tied to a ceasefire, but that they are prepared to negotiate a lasting peace even while fighting continues.

As András Kosztur, a historian and geopolitical expert, told Index, some progress may have been made on the issue of security guarantees, but specifics are still unknown. According to some news, Ukraine may receive guarantees similar to NATO's Article 5, but the Americans have only confirmed that they would participate in coordination. However, based on Donald Trump's words, the Europeans would play a leading role in it. Volodymyr Zelensky spoke about the need for significant arms subsidies: the Ukrainian president wrote about a $90 billion package, and the Financial Times wrote about a $100 billion package, which would be financed by the Europeans, while the equipment – such as Patriot air defense systems – would come from the United States.

“After the war is over, the Americans could invest in Ukrainian drone production, the FT wrote about $50 billion. However, nothing has been officially announced about this either,” the expert added. According to him, one of the most important issues, the problem of territorial exchanges, remains unclear:

We know that Zelensky would be willing to discuss this with Putin, and according to press reports, he told Trump that he would consider proportional territorial exchanges.

Kostur believes that all this may indicate that Zelensky is ready to give up Donbass if Ukraine gets other territories back, such as Kharkiv and smaller parts of Sumy regions.

"Kiev would probably most likely claim the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant located in Enerhodar, but there has been no official announcement about this yet, it can only be concluded from press reports and the interests of the parties," the expert pointed out.

The next step also requires Moscow

Regarding the role of European leaders, András Kosztur said that they were tougher than Zelensky and more rigidly insisted on rejecting the Alaskan conditions.

"For example, Macron and Merz would have continued to insist on a ceasefire before the peace talks, and they all ruled out the idea of territorial exchanges. Finnish President Stubb directly compared the Russians to the Huns, against whom the fortresses of Slavyansk and Kramatorsk provide protection. However, even with this, the Europeans and Zelensky were almost flattering towards Trump. After the talks, they seemed quite optimistic and threatened new sanctions if Russia refused to negotiate," the expert explained.

In response to Index's question, he also said that Trump and Zelensky are open to a trilateral (USA-Ukraine-Russia) summit, and it seems that Vladimir Putin is now open too, and according to reports, he even initiated a separate meeting with the Ukrainian president beforehand. Kostur added that no specific details have yet been made public about this either.

Trump said he was working on organizing the meeting, but the Russian side only said after Trump and Putin's nightly phone call that raising the level of the negotiating delegations was raised. It would be surprising for the Russian side if they sat down to negotiate with Zelensky without the details of the agreements having been worked out yet

– the expert opined.

Who allows what and how much?

When asked how much the White House negotiations could have brought the end of the war closer, András Kosztur said that there is a trend that clearly points towards the end of the conflict.

If Zelensky previously completely distanced himself from the idea of negotiations – as did the Europeans – now they themselves are urging them. True, the reason for this may also be that, confident of the expected rejection by the Russians or the failure of a sudden agreement reached under a roof, they want to shift the responsibility for the continuation of the war onto Moscow in front of Trump. The same, of course, applies on the Russian side: Putin’s openness may even be about appeasing Trump. With all this, there is now a real opportunity to end the war, as the positions seem to be getting closer. However, it is still unclear who is willing to give up what and how much – and whether this will be enough for the other side

– the expert explained.

He added that Russia appears to be giving in on demilitarization and security guarantees for Ukraine, although it continues to rule out the stationing of Western soldiers in Ukraine, while the Europeans – perhaps to Moscow’s annoyance – insist on it. Ukraine, on the other hand, is showing more openness than before on territorial issues and NATO membership.

“NATO membership is simply not mentioned, instead security guarantees have come to the fore. As for the territories: the dynamics of the attitude towards the negotiations are also revealing. In 2022, the complete withdrawal of Russian troops and the restoration of the 1991 borders were named as a prerequisite for the negotiations. After the failure of the 2023 counter-offensive, this demand was changed to the restoration of the 2022 lines. At the beginning of this year, the Ukrainians were already willing to negotiate along the front lines, and now the surrender of further territories does not seem to be out of the question,” András Kosztur pointed out.

There are many question marks, but the signs are encouraging

Regarding the Ukrainian and Russian assessments, the expert noted that Monday's White House talks are not really understood in Ukraine or Russia.

Neither side can see it as a failure or a victory. It seems that Zelensky did not stick to his own terms, but it is also unclear what he was actually willing to concede. It is not known exactly what the security guarantees cover. From the point of view of Ukrainian society, the question is whether they will really receive a guarantee similar to Article 5, or rather something that will remain a promise similar to the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, with little practical value. From the point of view of Russian public opinion, the question may arise: is Moscow willing to accept that the Ukrainian army will remain a force of hundreds of thousands of people, equipped with Western weapons in the future

– said the expert.

He pointed out that in Russia they would be positively evaluated if they were to acquire the Donbas without a fight. In Ukraine, however, opinions are divided: there are critical voices regarding the territorial exchanges, while others argue that continuing the war would also entail serious casualties for the country. According to András Kosztur, overall, it can be seen that the number of question marks is currently increasing. “This is a good sign in that the positions of the parties are less rigid than before, but the outcome of the process is still unclear, most likely not even for those who shaped it,” the expert stated.

You can read our updated news summary of the White House summit here, and the latest news related to the war in Ukraine here.