The brief summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Anchorage ended without a ceasefire or concrete settlement, leaving a flurry of diplomatic activity and a high-stakes meeting scheduled in Washington between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. With the public record vague and private talks continuing, diplomats and analysts say the coming days will determine whether the Anchorage encounter is a stepping-stone to a negotiated path or simply an episode that complicates coordination among Kyiv’s Western backers.

The immediate dynamic is one of competing urgencies. Kyiv and many European capitals want an enforceable ceasefire and continued pressure on Moscow; Washington’s leadership now faces the task of translating a series of private talks and competing proposals into clear, credible next steps that both protect Ukraine’s sovereignty and reassure allies worried about any perception of concessions to Moscow.

Immediate diplomatic fallout and battlefield realities

Anchorage underscored that major differences remain. The summit produced public statements and follow-up briefings rather than a binding agreement, and key decisions — above all, whether a ceasefire should come first or be part of a comprehensive peace settlement — remain unresolved. In the absence of an agreed ceasefire, fighting and missile strikes continue on the ground, keeping humanitarian suffering and battlefield shifts central to any diplomacy. That harsh reality will shape the tone and urgency of Trump’s meeting with Zelensky.

European leaders reacted quickly, insisting Ukraine must be at the centre of any talks that affect its territory and signalling that sanctions and military support would continue if Moscow does not make verifiable moves to stop its offensive operations. Allies are monitoring whether the U.S. will push a three-way process that includes Russia or instead ensure Ukraine’s central role in shaping any agreement. Expect immediate diplomatic activity aimed at clarifying what—if anything—Trump and Putin actually agreed on in Anchorage and whether any understandings involve territorial compromises or only frameworks for future negotiation.

On the battlefield, commanders say that even temporary pauses in fighting are fragile without robust verification and enforcement mechanisms. That constraint matters politically: Kyiv has repeatedly said it will not accept deals that cement Russian territorial gains. Any Washington meeting that is perceived as leaning toward territorial concessions without hard guarantees will face sharp resistance in Kyiv and across Europe.

What Zelensky is likely to press for in Washington

When President Zelensky arrives in Washington, his agenda will mix practical demands, red lines and political theatre. He is expected to press for three immediate priorities: credible security guarantees, concrete steps on sanctions enforcement and expansion if Russia fails to comply, and tangible humanitarian successes such as prisoner exchanges and the return of children and civilians deported or detained during the conflict.

Security guarantees will be front and centre. Kyiv wants legally binding commitments that go beyond diplomatic assurances; it seeks mechanisms that translate promises into timely defensive aid, rapid-response provisions, and either a multinational force or a clearly defined deterrent posture. Kyiv and many European capitals have discussed various models — from bilateral or multilateral treaties to bespoke coalitions that could respond quickly if Russia renews large-scale offensives — but each carries legal and political complications. Zelensky will press Washington to outline who will be the guarantors, what triggers a response, and how such commitments can be enforced without automatic NATO membership.

Sanctions are the other lever Kyiv will wield. Zelensky is likely to demand clearer assurances that punitive measures will snap back immediately if Russia does not adhere to any negotiated steps. This will include requests for the tightening of existing sanctions lists, targeted measures against key sectors of Russia’s war economy, and tools to prevent circumvention through third countries.

Humanitarian and accountability demands will also be foregrounded. Kyiv has stressed the need for prisoner releases, the safe return of children taken to Russia-occupied areas, and robust documentation mechanisms for wartime abuses. These are issues with political and moral salience that Zelensky can press effectively in a face-to-face meeting.

Politically, Zelensky must balance urgency with caution. He cannot appear to accept a deal that cedes territory or sovereignty without broad domestic and allied buy-in. In Washington, he will need to anchor any discussion of compromises with clear red lines and timelines, and he will seek immediate assurances that any U.S.-brokered steps will involve European partners so that Kyiv does not face unilateral pressure to concede.

Paths to a credible peace — and the risks

Diplomats and experts sketch several possible pathways emerging from this moment, but each carries deep risks.

One path is a phased, verifiable process: begin with localized, monitored pauses in fighting to create humanitarian space; move to an interim security architecture with international observers or peacekeepers in specified sectors; and negotiate longer-term political arrangements under strict verification, investments in reconstruction, and binding security guarantees by a coalition of states. This approach is painstaking, requires strong verification measures, and depends on buy-in from multiple capitals — but it minimizes the risk of rewarding territorial conquest and preserves Ukraine’s negotiating leverage.

A second, riskier path is a push for a swift comprehensive deal that locks in front lines and trades territorial recognitions or long-term arrangements for an immediate end to hostilities and partial sanctions relief. Such a route could reduce violence in the short term but would likely be politically toxic in Kyiv and among many Western publics and governments. It would also raise profound questions about the enforcement of guarantees and the precedent it sets for conflicts resolved by force.

A third possibility is essentially transactional: provisional humanitarian measures and prisoner swaps accompanied by intensified back-channel diplomacy, with any broader political settlement deferred. This could buy time and reduce human suffering but would leave the fundamental political contest unresolved and may embolden Moscow to consolidate battlefield gains while the diplomatic process drags on.

Key to all these scenarios is sequencing and enforcement. Who signs guarantees? How will violations be detected and punished? Will economic sanctions be designed with automatic “snap-back” triggers? Can international peacekeepers deploy with clear mandates and secure lines of supply? The answers will determine whether any negotiated pause becomes durable or merely a lull.

Another dynamic is Washington’s domestic politics. The U.S. president faces incentives to project the image of a dealmaker, and that political calculus may press for visible progress. At the same time, Congress, allied capitals and public opinion will shape the scope of what the president can credibly promise. Trump’s approach in Anchorage and how he frames the Washington meeting will influence whether European partners see a compatible strategy or growing divergence.

Finally, there is the question of Moscow’s ultimate aims. If Russia’s leadership insists on maximal territorial demands and vetoes Ukraine’s aspirations for NATO or EU anchors, any settlement that does not address those aims may be fragile. Conversely, if Moscow is genuinely willing to negotiate trade-offs in exchange for credible, enforceable security arrangements and partial sanctions relief, a more durable pathway could emerge — but such willingness is not evident in public statements.

As Trump prepares to meet Zelensky, diplomats will be watching for concrete deliverables: named guarantor states, timelines for sanctions enforcement or expansion, agreed mechanisms for prisoner exchanges and humanitarian access, and clarity on whether any trilateral talks with Moscow are conditional on Kyiv’s consent and participation. The balance Washington strikes between urgency and respect for Ukraine’s sovereignty will shape the next phase of diplomacy — and the likelihood that the Anchorage talks translate into a credible, enforceable push toward ending the bloodshed.

(Adapted from Reuters.com)