U.S. President Donald Trump has publicly placed responsibility for stalled Ukraine peace negotiations on Kyiv rather than Moscow, a sharp departure from the position of European allies who argue Russia has little genuine interest in ending the war. In an exclusive interview, Trump claimed that Russian President Vladimir Putin is prepared to conclude the conflict, while Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy remains reluctant.
The remarks come as the war approaches its fourth year, making it Europe’s largest land conflict since World War II. Trump’s framing signals a notable shift in U.S. rhetoric at a moment when Washington remains central to any viable diplomatic settlement.
Trump’s Position and Rhetorical Shift
Speaking from the Oval Office, Trump said Putin was “ready to make a deal,” while asserting that Ukraine was “less ready” to compromise. When asked directly why U.S.-led negotiations had failed to produce an agreement, Trump responded bluntly: “Zelenskiy.”
The comments reflect renewed frustration with the Ukrainian leader, despite signs that relations between the two presidents had stabilised during Trump’s first year back in office. Trump has repeatedly demonstrated a greater willingness than many U.S. allies to accept Putin’s statements at face value, a stance that has unsettled Kyiv, European capitals, and lawmakers in Washington.
Negotiations and Points of Contention
Recent U.S.-led talks have focused on post-war security guarantees for Ukraine, aimed at preventing a renewed Russian invasion. As part of these discussions, Washington has reportedly pressed Kyiv to relinquish control of parts of the eastern Donbas region—a proposal that remains deeply controversial.
Negotiations have been spearheaded by U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, with Ukrainian officials closely involved. However, several European officials have expressed scepticism over whether Putin would honour any agreement, even if Ukraine accepted painful concessions.
Intelligence Warnings and Allied Skepticism
Trump’s optimism about Putin contrasts sharply with U.S. intelligence assessments. In December, Reuters reported that American intelligence agencies continued to warn that Putin had not abandoned maximalist objectives, including control over all of Ukraine and influence over former Soviet territories. That assessment was publicly disputed by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.
This divergence highlights a broader split between political leadership and intelligence analysis, reinforcing European concerns that Russia may be using negotiations to consolidate territorial gains rather than seek lasting peace.
Zelenskiy’s Constraints
Trump declined to explain in detail why he believes Zelenskiy is holding up negotiations, saying only that the Ukrainian leader was “having a hard time getting there.” Zelenskiy, for his part, has consistently ruled out territorial concessions, arguing that Ukraine’s constitution prohibits surrendering sovereign land.
This legal and political constraint limits Kyiv’s flexibility at the negotiating table and places Zelenskiy at odds with U.S. proposals that treat territorial compromise as a necessary condition for peace.
Implications
Trump’s comments risk widening the transatlantic divide over Ukraine. By publicly shifting blame onto Kyiv, Washington may weaken Ukraine’s negotiating position while emboldening Moscow. The rhetoric also signals a possible recalibration of U.S. priorities from defending Ukrainian territorial integrity toward securing a rapid, deal-based end to the conflict.
For Europe, the remarks raise concerns that U.S. pressure could force Ukraine into an agreement that freezes the conflict on Russia’s terms rather than resolves it.
Personal Analysis
Trump’s framing reflects a transactional approach to diplomacy in which compromise is measured by willingness to concede territory rather than by long-term strategic stability. While this may accelerate talks, it underestimates the domestic and constitutional constraints facing Zelenskiy and overestimates Putin’s credibility as a negotiating partner.
By casting Ukraine as the primary obstacle to peace, the U.S. risks undermining a core principle of the post-World War II order: that borders cannot be changed by force. Any deal reached under such pressure may end active fighting but it would likely sow the seeds for future conflict rather than deliver durable peace.
With information fromReuters.