Diplomacy’s Last Card

Just two days after Zelensky, Putin and European leaders talked in the White House, and Putin and Trump met in Alaska last week, Russia has unleashed one of its heaviest barrages in weeks, launching 574 drones and 40 missiles across Ukrainian cities, killing civilians and devastating infrastructure. The Russia-Ukraine continuing war toils on with familiar violence and harshness. Ukrainian officials called the attacks another reminder of why peace efforts matter. “It highlights why bringing this war to an end is so critical,” said Andrii Sybiha, Ukraine’s foreign minister.

Against this grim backdrop, an unexpected diplomatic push is taking shape. Donald Trump, never one to shy from the role of deal-maker, has announced that he is working to bring Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky together for direct talks. The meeting, Trump says, would take place in neutral Europe, Switzerland and Austria have been floated, and Istanbul remains a possibility, followed by a trilateral summit with Trump himself at the table. The White House confirmed on August 19th that planning for such a meeting is “underway.” The idea has revived hopes, but also doubts. If Putin and Zelensky were to meet face-to-face, it would be the first since the war that began in 2022. Only they can settle the hardest questions: borders, sovereignty, reparations, and security guarantees. Yet Putin has long refused to treat Zelensky as a legitimate counterpart, while Zelensky knows that appearing too eager risks undermining Ukraine’s leverage. For Trump, it is a gamble fraught with uncertainty.

The timing of this initiative is not coincidental. On the battlefield, momentum has stalled. Ukraine’s counter-offensive last year yielded limited gains. Western aid, once generous, is harder to sustain amid political fatigue in Europe and partisan gridlock in Washington. Russia, though bloodied, continues to grind forward with manpower and firepower. This deadlock has created space and perhaps necessity for diplomacy. Sybiha’s comments, made as missiles struck Ukrainian cities. It is also true that the war cannot continue indefinitely at its present intensity. Zelensky has signalled openness to meeting Putin “in neutral Europe” without preconditions. “I am ready for any format,” he said. Such pragmatism reflects the pressure of circumstance as much as genuine optimism.

For Trump, the urgency is also political. He relishes positioning himself as a statesman who can do what others could not. His hot-mic moment last week, boasting about making “a deal with Putin,” captures his instinct: diplomacy as spectacle, negotiation as theatre. Bringing Putin and Zelensky together would allow him to claim the mantle of peacemaker, both abroad and at home. Yet the road to talks is riddled with obstacles. European leaders insist that a ceasefire is a necessary first step. Without one, negotiations risk being held under fire, undermining trust before they even begin.

Trump, who is always impatient, takes a different view. He argues that talks do not necessarily need a ceasefire as with conditions the end result is deadlock. Zelensky also told the media that meetings should happen “without conditions and with a focus on ending the war,” though his words were not as forceful as many expected. For Ukraine, keeping the West united is crucial. Any gap between the U.S. and Europe could encourage the Kremlin. Putin, with his long political experience, is skilled at exploiting such divisions. If Trump moves ahead without European support, he risks opening cracks that Russia will quickly take advantage of.

Security guarantees: the thorniest issue

Even if a meeting happens, the matter of security guarantees for Ukraine looms large. Zelensky, while speaking to the media in the Oval Office, has proposed a package involving $90 billion worth of American weapons funded by Europe, as well as domestic production of drones, some of which would be purchased by the United States. Trump has suggested that European countries could serve as guarantors, with America in a coordinating role. For Kyiv, such guarantees are essential. The war has exposed the limits of verbal assurances, like the ill-fated 1994 Budapest Memorandum, under which Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for promises of sovereignty that Russia later shredded. Ukrainians insist that this time, guarantees must be binding and enforceable.

Moscow wants to block Ukraine’s integration into Western security structures. Russia might tolerate vague assurances. Anything firmer will be resisted. This makes security guarantees the fault line of any negotiation. Without them, Ukraine cannot be secure. With them, Russia cannot claim victory. How this contradiction is resolved will determine whether talks yield substance or collapse into recrimination.

Trump’s personal role is both an asset and a liability. Putin, over time, with experience, has learned to read the habits of more conventional Western leaders. Trump has gained a reputation for unpredictability, but sometimes this cuts both ways. Trump’s foreign policy has often swung sharply. He has scrapped deals in one week and suggested big new ones the next. This has made allies wary of trusting his promises. Even if he calls for a summit, there is no certainty he will stick with it. He also tends to make diplomacy very personal, which can sometimes distract from the bigger issues at hand. Ending the war in Ukraine is not just about two leaders shaking hands, it demands patient diplomacy, step-by-step progress, and firm enforcement of any agreement. Trump’s tendency to believe in quick deals risks overlooking how deep the mistrust runs on both sides.

For Putin, many analysts think a meeting with Zelensky would be more about strategy than real peace. Putin, by agreeing to talks, could be using another strategy to buy time and create doubts among Ukraine’s allies. For political observers, a genuine compromise looks unlikely. Russia still questions Ukraine’s legitimacy. The Kremlin also rejects Western security guarantees and shows little sign of fully recognising Ukraine’s independence. Even if Putin meets Zelensky, his main aim may be to gain an advantage, not to end the war. The danger is that talks could become another tactic for Russia to weaken Ukraine while the conflict continues.

Why talks still matter

Yet even with these caveats, talks are worth pursuing. Wars end either with total victory or with negotiation. Total victory for either side in Ukraine looks increasingly remote. That leaves diplomacy, however flawed. A Putin–Zelensky meeting may not end the war, but it could test whether the door to peace is even ajar. The challenge is to balance military pressure with political openings, ensuring that diplomacy is not a substitute for defence but a complement to it.

For Trump, the stakes are personal as well as geopolitical. Success would allow him to brandish a signature achievement — the man who brokered peace in Europe’s bloodiest conflict since the Second World War. Failure would expose him to charges of naivety or worse: of having been played by Putin.

For Ukraine, the stakes are existential. Each Russian missile strike deepens the urgency of securing reliable guarantees. Each day of war tests the patience of its allies. Zelensky knows that without Western support, Ukraine cannot sustain the fight indefinitely. A meeting with Putin, even a futile one, brings positivity, signals to both domestic and international audiences that Kyiv is willing to explore every path to peace.

The coming weeks will be critical. If Putin and Zelensky meet in Vienna, Geneva, or Istanbul, it will mark a diplomatic breakthrough, even if only symbolic. Whether the talks yield a path to settlement depends on what happens behind the scenes: the preparatory work, the agreed frameworks, and the resolve of Ukraine’s allies. Is that happening and then who is mediating or negotiating. The Russians will be difficult. The details of security guarantees remain undefined. Trump could change course at any moment. But diplomacy is often born of impossibilities. Talks may not end the war. But without them, the war will have no end in sight.

Surinder Singh Oberoi,

National Editor Greater Kashmir