Sunday’s meeting between Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy produced no dramatic announcements, sweeping declarations or signed peace deal. That outcome should surprise no one. After nearly four years of war, diplomacy was never going to turn on a single press conference or photo opportunity.
President Trump himself struck a measured tone afterward, saying, "I think we’ll get it done," while acknowledging that the effort "can go poorly." Zelenskyy, for his part, described the talks as constructive and serious, emphasizing that Ukraine remains committed to a just peace that ensures long-term security. Both statements point to the same reality: the process is underway, but the hard decisions lie ahead.
Still, the meeting mattered.
‘ONLY TRUMP CAN STOP RUSSIA’: MILLIONS FACE FREEZING WINTER, UKRAINE ENERGY EXECUTIVE WARNS
According to reporting by Reuters and The Wall Street Journal, the purpose of the Trump–Zelenskyy talks was not to finalize peace, but to close gaps on a developing framework — often described as a 20-point plan — before Trump engages directly with Russian President Vladimir Putin. That framework emphasizes Ukrainian sovereignty, enforcement mechanisms and security guarantees, while leaving the most sensitive issues — territory and the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant — unresolved.
In other words, diplomacy has entered a more serious phase. Not because peace is imminent, but because exhaustion is universal. Ukraine continues to suffer devastating losses. Russia bleeds manpower and treasure. Europe is strained under economic and security pressures. The United States faces growing global instability from Eastern Europe to the Middle East to the Indo-Pacific. Fatigue does not guarantee peace — but it creates political space for it.
Cautious optimism is therefore justified. But optimism without realism would be dangerous.
The central question hanging over Sunday’s meeting is not whether a framework exists — it does — but whether it is built on a false assumption that still dominates much Western thinking: that Vladimir Putin is a rational actor who can be satisfied with partial concessions. The record suggests otherwise.
US OFFICIALS TOUT PROGRESS IN TALKS TO REACH 'LASTING AND DURABLE PEACE' BETWEEN UKRAINE, RUSSIA
Since the invasion began, Putin has responded to compromise with escalation, to restraint with expansion, and to negotiations with continued violence. Even as peace efforts accelerated this week, Russia continued launching missile and drone strikes across Ukraine — a fact confirmed by media outlets. Those attacks are not random. They are signals. Either Putin intends to continue the war outright, or he is deliberately shaping the diplomatic environment by force — creating urgency, fear and pressure for Ukrainian concessions.
In either case, the implication is clear: Putin will not stop unless he is forced to stop — or unless he is given everything he is demanding.
That reality should sober any discussion of "land for peace." Territorial concessions dominate headlines because maps are tangible and emotionally charged. But land is not the decisive variable. Security is.
Multiple outlets have reported that Ukraine is seeking what officials describe as "Article 5–like" security guarantees — binding commitments from the United States and its allies to respond to future Russian aggression. Zelenskyy has even indicated openness to halting Ukraine’s NATO membership bid if such guarantees are credible. That alone underscores how existential this question is for Kyiv.
Ukraine has learned the hard way that vague assurances are worthless. The 1994 Budapest Memorandum did not stop Russia. Previous ceasefires did not stop Russia. Agreements without enforcement did not stop Russia. Any peace that trades Ukrainian territory for promises without teeth is not peace — it is a pause before the next assault.
Security guarantees must therefore be specific, automatic and enforceable. Clear triggers. Defined responses. Real consequences. Not committees that deliberate while missiles fall. Not sanctions that require months of political wrangling to reassemble. Reuters has reported that the draft framework under discussion includes monitoring mechanisms and penalties for violations — an encouraging sign, if they are implemented seriously.
TRUMP, ZELENSKYY SAY UKRAINE PEACE DEAL CLOSE BUT 'THORNY ISSUES' REMAIN AFTER FLORIDA TALKS
This is where President Trump’s role becomes decisive.
Trump possesses leverage that few leaders do, precisely because he is willing to combine pressure with negotiation. He can tighten sanctions enforcement and close evasion pathways that blunt existing measures. He can impose snap-back penalties that activate immediately upon violation. He can maintain military assistance sufficient to raise the cost of renewed Russian offensives. And he can offer a conditional off-ramp — economic relief or diplomatic reengagement — only after verified compliance.
The objective is not to persuade Putin of Western goodwill. It is to change his cost calculus.
ZELENSKYY ENCOURAGED BY 'VERY GOOD' CHRISTMAS TALKS WITH US
Putin has repeatedly shown that he will absorb pain — economic, military, diplomatic — if he believes time and fear are on his side. What he has not shown is a willingness to retreat in the face of strength. Any peace framework that fails to account for that pattern risks collapsing the moment attention shifts elsewhere.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION
Europe should be watching closely. This war is not solely about Ukraine. It is a test of whether borders in Europe can once again be changed by force. A settlement that assumes Putin can be "managed" through compromise alone will not stabilize the continent; it will invite the next crisis. History is unkind to illusions of restraint when dealing with expansionist regimes.
The most realistic takeaway from Sunday’s meeting is this: diplomacy has not failed — but neither has it yet proven itself. Alignment between Washington and Kyiv is a necessary first step, not a sufficient one. If President Trump proceeds to speak with Putin armed with a unified framework, clear red lines and credible enforcement tools, then this effort has a chance.
If not — if peace is pursued without strength, enforcement and clarity — then Sunday’s meeting will be remembered not as the beginning of the end, but as another moment when the West mistook words for power.
Peace remains possible. But only if we abandon the comforting fiction that Vladimir Putin can be satisfied with half-measures — and build an agreement that makes renewed aggression unmistakably costly.
