 |
| President Donald Trump |
WASHINGTON — U.S. President Donald Trump said Monday he is prepared to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping, even if Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is excluded from the talks, underscoring a growing willingness in Washington to pursue direct great-power diplomacy that sidelines Kyiv in the search for an end to nearly five years of war.
Speaking to reporters as he left the White House, Trump responded to reports that Putin had floated a three-way summit—potentially on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) gathering in Shenzhen, China, on November 18-19. “Anything I can do to end the war, whether somebody’s there or not,” Trump said. He added that such a meeting might focus more on nuclear issues and denuclearization than solely on Ukraine, noting that “Russia, frankly, has been fine on Ukraine. They haven’t been doing much. And the same thing with China.”
The comments came the same day Trump again questioned Zelenskyy’s fitness to lead negotiations. “Zelenskyy doesn’t know what he’s talking about,” Trump said, reacting to the Ukrainian leader’s criticism of recent U.S. moves. “Zelenskyy is a man that should have had this war settled a long time ago… I think it’s time for somebody else to negotiate on behalf of Ukraine.” He has made similar suggestions before, including an October 10 call for Ukraine to “get a new leader who can make a deal.”
These statements mark a sharp escalation in the public and private rupture between Washington and Kyiv. What began as policy differences over the pace and terms of peace talks has hardened into mutual accusations of bad faith, interrupted military support systems, and competing visions of how the war—launched by Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022—should end.
Background: From Campaign Promise to Prolonged Stalemate
Trump entered office in January 2025 promising a rapid resolution to the conflict, repeatedly claiming during the 2024 campaign that he could end it “in one day.” Nearly two years later, the front lines have remained largely static in many sectors while casualties have mounted and Ukraine’s energy infrastructure has suffered repeated Russian strikes. Russia continues to occupy roughly one-fifth of Ukraine’s territory.
Trump’s approach has emphasized direct engagement with Putin, pressure on Ukraine to halt deep strikes on Russian energy facilities (particularly diesel refineries that affect global prices), and a preference for negotiated settlement over indefinite attrition. An October 9 phone call between Trump and Putin produced both the reported summit idea and a controversial arrangement allowing Russian diesel onto international markets, including potential U.S. imports, in an effort to ease high fuel costs ahead of the November midterm elections. Trump later waived key provisions of a new sanctions package targeting Russia, citing national interest and the need to keep Moscow at the negotiating table.
Zelenskyy and many European partners view these steps as unilateral concessions that embolden the Kremlin without reciprocal Russian restraint. In a Bloomberg interview published around the same period, Zelenskyy said recent U.S. actions looked like an effort “to convince Ukraine to capitulate.” He has described the diesel arrangement and sanctions relief as a “betrayal” and argued that easing pressure only encourages further Russian attacks.
The Satellite and Intelligence Flashpoints
Compounding the political dispute have been disruptions to systems Ukraine relies on for defense. Ukrainian officials reported sudden speed restrictions on Starlink (and related Starshield capabilities) terminals used by military units, particularly affecting high-speed drone operations critical for intercepting Russian jet-powered Shahed drones and conducting frontline missions. Limits reportedly kicked in around 160 km/h or lower in some cases, while tests in EU territory showed normal higher-speed performance—leading Zelenskyy to call it a “planned operation” rather than a technical glitch.
Zelenskyy said Ukraine had not received a clear explanation and that the problems, combined with interruptions in U.S. intelligence sharing that previously provided advance warning of Russian missile and drone attacks, left Ukrainian forces and civilians more vulnerable. He raised the issues with bipartisan U.S. lawmakers.
Trump said he was unaware of any ordered interruption to Starlink services and wanted the matter investigated: “I’d like to find out.” Elon Musk has indicated that ultimate responsibility for military-related systems rests with the U.S. government. Secretary of State Marco Rubio rejected claims of a White House-ordered slowdown, stating no one there directed a reduction in speeds and distinguishing commercial Starlink from the military Starshield product, to which he said Ukraine does not currently have access (though requests are under discussion). Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has also cautioned Zelenskyy against what he called inaccurate public statements on the issue.
Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), who met with Zelenskyy, issued a joint statement criticizing the broader approach: “Funding Russia’s war machine, disabling Ukraine’s satellite communications, and crippling its air defense are all impediments to peace… Trying to appease a murderous thug like Vladimir Putin will only prolong this war and bring greater casualties.”
Analysis: Great-Power Deal-Making vs. Ukrainian Agency
The proposed Trump-Putin-Xi format carries historical echoes of the 1945 Yalta Conference, where Allied leaders shaped postwar Europe with limited input from smaller nations. Putin has long sought to frame the conflict as a matter for major powers to resolve, consistently rejecting meetings with Zelenskyy on neutral ground and insisting any direct talks occur in Moscow—a condition Kyiv rejects. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed discussions about a possible three-way meeting but said there was “no clear understanding yet regarding the meeting itself or its potential agenda,” while noting Ukraine would ultimately need to be involved in any final deal.
For Trump, the appeal is clear: a high-profile diplomatic breakthrough that fulfills a core campaign pledge, potentially lowers energy prices, and allows him to claim credit for reducing bloodshed. He has argued that continued Ukrainian strikes on Russian refineries create global economic problems that hurt American farmers and consumers, and that Zelenskyy has missed earlier opportunities for better terms.
Critics in Kyiv, European capitals, and parts of the U.S. Congress counter that excluding Ukraine from talks about its own territory and sovereignty risks a settlement on Moscow’s terms—territorial concessions, limits on Ukraine’s military, and weakened Western security guarantees—that would reward aggression and set a dangerous precedent. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha warned that a Russia-China-U.S. meeting without Kyiv “would do only the opposite: encourage Putin to continue this war.”
China’s potential role adds another layer. Beijing has maintained a posture of neutrality while deepening economic ties with Russia. Xi’s participation could position China as a mediator or guarantor, advancing its image as a central player in global security architecture, though it has shown little willingness to pressure Putin meaningfully so far.
Domestic U.S. politics also loom large. With midterms approaching, Trump faces pressure on inflation and energy costs. Bipartisan unease exists over appearing to accommodate Russia while Ukraine fights with American-supplied weapons and intelligence. At the same time, war fatigue in the United States and Europe is real after years of high costs and slow progress on the battlefield.
Looking Ahead
Whether a Trump-Putin-Xi meeting materializes remains uncertain. Trump has not formally committed, and Beijing’s precise stance is still evolving through diplomatic channels. Any durable settlement would almost certainly require Ukrainian buy-in and European involvement to be sustainable; otherwise, the risk of renewed fighting or frozen conflict remains high.
What is clear is that the relationship between Washington and Kyiv has entered one of its most strained periods. Trump’s public suggestion that Ukraine needs different negotiators, combined with practical pressures on intelligence, communications, and sanctions, signals a U.S. strategy increasingly focused on compelling a deal rather than indefinitely sustaining Ukraine’s maximalist war aims. Zelenskyy, for his part, continues to insist that only sustained pressure on Moscow—and Ukrainian agency in any talks—can produce a just and lasting peace.
The coming weeks, including the APEC summit and the U.S. midterms, will test whether these divergent approaches can still converge on an end to the fighting, or whether the gap between the White House and Kyiv widens further.
Samuel O. Sulaimon is the founder and Editor-in-Chief of Naijapiz. He covers Global, News, Sports, Finance, Faiths, Education, Politics and Technology.
Post a Comment