Following a series of late-night telephone conversations with European leaders, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has briefed them on a recent meeting with former U.S. President Donald Trump. The discussions, confirmed by German government spokesperson Stefan Kornelius, highlight a concerted effort to navigate a precarious path toward a negotiated settlement in Ukraine, while also revealing potential strategic tensions within the transatlantic alliance.
While German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and other European counterparts publicly lauded the “close transatlantic cooperation” stemming from the Zelenskyy-Trump meeting, the reported content of those discussions remains opaque, fueling speculation regarding Trump’s position on the conflict and the potential impact on European policy. The German readout emphasized the urgency of achieving a “just and lasting peace” for Ukraine, pledging increased support aimed at compelling Russia into “serious negotiations.
Crucially, the commitment to escalating pressure on Moscow includes the implementation of the 19th EU sanctions package and, a significantly more controversial point, the utilization of immobilized Russian state assets. This latter measure, while presented as a tool to incentivize dialogue, faces considerable legal and political hurdles within the EU, with concerns raised about potential retaliatory measures from Russia and the precedent it sets for international finance.
Chancellor Merz’s statement, emphasizing Germany’s unwavering support and a coordinated approach following the Trump encounter, speaks to a desire for unified action but also underscores a perceived need for a clearly defined “peace plan”. The absence of detail pertaining to the nature of this plan raises questions about the scope of potential compromises being considered and whether these align with Ukraine’s stated goals.
The carefully worded pronouncements from Berlin and other capitals mask a complex reality: the Trump-Zelenskyy meeting introduces a new layer of uncertainty into the ongoing conflict and the resulting pressure to develop a “peace plan” may exacerbate existing divisions regarding acceptable outcomes and the long-term security architecture of Europe. The declaration of increased support and the commitment to utilizing frozen assets, while seemingly positive steps, are accompanied by significant risks and unanswered questions regarding their effectiveness and broader geopolitical implications.