After the loud but inconclusive Alaska summit, a new key meeting took place in Washington: on August 18, 2025, at the White House, U.S. President Donald Trump, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, and several European leaders gathered. The goal was to determine the next steps — from a temporary ceasefire to long-term security guarantees for Ukraine.
The tone of the talks was noticeably more restrained than in February: participants avoided sharp statements, trying to outline the contours of possible agreements. At the same time, Moscow’s tough stance and differing emphases between Washington and European capitals left many questions unanswered.
What Was Discussed at the White House
According to participants, the conversation began with a bilateral part between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky, after which EU and NATO representatives joined the talks. This combination of formats allowed them to align positions first, and then move the discussion to a multilateral level.
The central issue was security guarantees. According to the U.S. side, the framework under discussion is one in which the United States will “help guarantee Ukraine’s security” in a future deal. The details of the model — from the composition of participants to response mechanisms — remain to be agreed upon.
European leaders emphasized the need to link any guarantees with a real reduction in hostilities and the restoration of Ukraine’s control over critical infrastructure. Their message was clear: Ukraine’s security is Europe’s security, and therefore guarantees must be effective, not declarative.
Another issue was borders and the status of temporarily occupied territories. Kyiv firmly rejected options involving legal recognition of losses or “land-for-peace” trade-offs. For Ukraine, any agreement must comply with international law and ensure the restoration of sovereignty.
Also discussed was Russia’s role in potential trilateral negotiations. The idea of a “Ukraine–U.S.–Russia” meeting has been raised repeatedly, but the Kremlin points to a “lack of subject matter” or prior conditions. Thus, the issue is not the date but the substance of a future dialogue.
Amid the absence of a breakthrough, the parties sought to establish interim benchmarks. These included further defense support for Ukraine — particularly in air defense, intelligence, and command-and-control systems — as well as coordination of sanctions policy in case Moscow undermines the agreements.
“The United States will help guarantee Ukraine’s security in any peace agreement,” Donald Trump assured during the Washington meeting.
Volodymyr Zelensky called the conversation “long and substantive,” stressing that any formula for peace must be based on justice and real mechanisms to prevent renewed aggression. For Kyiv, it is crucial that guarantees work not only on paper but within specific timelines and procedures.
The European delegation insisted that the framework of guarantees must include both political and military-technical tools, including training of Ukrainian units, joint defense-industrial projects, and long-term financial commitments for reconstruction.
However, not all participants agreed on sequencing. Some allies favor a ceasefire as a “window of opportunity” for negotiations, while others warn that a freeze without guarantees will merely lock in the conflict and risk renewed escalation.
The issue of potential “compromises” also remained contentious. The U.S. side described flexibility as a tool for breaking deadlocks, whereas Kyiv and most Europeans emphasized: compromises may concern procedures, but not the principles of territorial integrity and sovereignty.
The day’s conclusion: despite active diplomacy, there was no quick breakthrough. However, the contours of a roadmap were outlined — with milestones tied to continued support, and with clear tests for Russia’s readiness for substantive negotiations.
What This Meeting Means for Ukraine and Europe
First, it is a signal of renewed synchronization between Washington and European capitals. Even without major declarations, the very presence of leaders in one room after the tense “Alaska” summit reduces chaos and creates a framework of responsibility.
Second, security guarantees are moving from general declarations into practical terms. The parties are increasingly speaking of concrete instruments — from integrated air defense systems to multi-year weapons programs and joint defense planning.
Third, attention is shifting to measurable results: timelines, decision packages, conditions for continued assistance, and “red lines” in case of violations. This makes the process more transparent to societies and raises the political cost for those who attempt to undermine agreements.
For Ukraine, the key is balance: strengthening defense capabilities without allowing the conflict to be frozen on unfavorable terms, while keeping the channel open for real negotiations, where guarantees are backed by commitments from several powerful allies.
For Europe, this is a test of strategic autonomy: the willingness not only to maintain sanctions pressure and finance reconstruction but also to承担 part of the defense burden, including training, logistics, and arms production.
For the U.S., the meeting is a chance to prove that peace initiatives are not about a “deal at any price.” If Washington can combine tough conditions for Moscow with realistic guarantees for Kyiv, the process will gain new momentum.
The Washington meeting did not bring quick solutions but jointly outlined the contours of a future agreement: without real guarantees, coordinated with Europe and tied to Russia’s actions, any “peace” will be fragile. The coming weeks will show whether this framework turns into a roadmap with concrete dates and enforcement mechanisms.
