WASHINGTON DC – Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, the wartime leader who has long commanded the global stage with his defiance and resilience, appeared to have navigated a treacherous diplomatic minefield on Monday, as he was joined by a powerful delegation of European leaders at the White House.

The show of force was orchestrated to provide a unified wall of allied support for Zelensky in his critical meeting with US President Donald Trump, who recently held a high-stakes summit with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin. Trump has since been pressing for a peace deal that would demand territorial concessions from Kyiv.

The meeting was a marked departure from the tense and public confrontation between Trump and Zelensky in February. It ended on a positive note but with few specifics, leaving significant hurdles ahead on the road to peace.

Trump was notably civil toward Zelensky, who in turn spoke of a “really good” conversation. The European leaders – including German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni – also expressed relief and a sense of progress, praising Trump for his commitment to a peaceful solution.

“We are on the side of Ukraine,” said Meloni, signaling a united front among a broad spectrum of European leaders.

Security g uarantees b ecome a c oncrete p lan

While the summit’s main purpose was to unblock the path to a leaders’ meeting, the most substantive progress appeared to be in the area of security guarantees for Ukraine – a topic seen as the crux of any lasting settlement. The talks turned a vague promise into a concrete action plan.

Speaking to reporters after the meetings outside the White House, President Zelensky announced that he had received “important signals” from the US and that the specifics of a security accord would be worked out “within 10 days.”

This timeline was given weight by British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, who confirmed that the “Coalition of the Willing” – a group of 31 countries committed to strengthening Ukraine – would work with the US on a common understanding of these guarantees.

Starmer defined this as an “Article-5-like” accord, which would be a “lasting deal, that is enforced if necessary” and would have “consequences” if breached by Putin.

The promise of a “US backstop” to such a deal was a key victory for Kyiv, which has long sought to lock in an American commitment.

Diplomatic c hess g ame

The diplomatic front moved forward, but the path to a summit revealed a complex and at times contradictory journey.

Zelensky told reporters that it was Putin who had proposed the two-stage meeting format: a bilateral meeting between the Ukrainian president and the Russian leader, followed by a trilateral summit involving President Trump. This revelation immediately highlighted a key point of diplomatic confusion, as Trump had previously indicated the trilateral meeting would be the first and immediate next step.

The second “material outcome” of the Washington talks, as defined by Starmer, was the confirmation of this two-stage process. The British Prime Minister also listed the key issues to be discussed: the return of Ukrainian children, the exchange of prisoners, and the thorny issue of territory.

Chasm of t rust

The fragile unity of the day was not without its moments of palpable discord. French President Emmanuel Macron, while praising Trump for his commitment, offered a more cautious and pessimistic view of Russia’s intentions.

He told reporters that he was “not convinced Russia wants peace” and voiced support for a ceasefire as a prerequisite to any direct talks – a direct contradiction of Trump’s position. Macron also delivered a thinly veiled warning, stating that if the diplomatic process were met with a Russian refusal, sanctions would need to be increased.

This European realism stood in stark contrast to Trump’s repeated insistence that Putin was genuinely interested in peace.

To a skeptical Zelensky, Trump said, “I think you’ll see that President Putin really would like to do something else.” This stance, which echoes Putin’s preferred framing of the conflict, directly contradicts the long-held allied view that the Russian leader is fundamentally untrustworthy.

Skepticism amid cautious optimism

Veteran diplomat Richard Kauzlarich, a former US Presidential envoy to the Newly Independent States during the Bill Clinton administration, told Kyiv Post that he was “reassured by the unity” of the European coalition but remained skeptical about the core proposal of “Article 5-like security guarantees” for Ukraine, which he called an “unrealistic goal” that Putin was unlikely to accept.

Kauzlarich concluded that while the outcome was a “far better outcome compared to the first summit,” there must be “concrete steps that lock the US into this multilateral effort that Putin will seek to undermine.”

Yuriy Boyechko, a US-based humanitarian aid chief, offered a more visceral counterpoint, noting that even as the meetings were underway in Washington, “over 50 Russian drones are in the air attacking civilian targets in Ukraine.”

Speaking to Kyiv Post, Boyechko argued that Putin will only stop the war if he gains full control of Ukraine and is using negotiations to buy time. He concluded that the only person who can end the war is Putin himself, and that will only happen if “Putin begins to feel serious economic distress within Russia.”

The stakes for each leader would be immense. For Trump, the summit was a chance to emerge as a masterful dealmaker. For Zelensky, the upcoming meeting with Putin would be the ultimate gamble – either a chance to secure peace, or a perilous step toward surrendering control of his nation’s fate.