Trump hopes such a meeting will lead to a trilateral summit with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, the format that Russia rejected at the Istanbul talks. For Putin, such a scenario could be an opportunity to pull Trump closer to Moscow’s narrative, directly influencing the US stance.
A meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin has long been part of diplomatic discussions, but it seems that the current moment could create favorable conditions for its realization. On the one hand, Trump, the US president, believes in the power of personal influence and in his ability to convince other leaders through direct communication. According to him, a “face-to-face” meeting with Putin could overcome months of tensions and diplomatic deadlock. On the other hand, the Russian leader has other reasons for sitting down at the table: not to give up the fight, but to buy time, consolidate his gains on the front and enter the talks from a stronger position.
Since the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine, there have been several failed attempts at negotiations. In May, the United States, European countries and Ukraine proposed an unconditional ceasefire, but Russia rejected it, offering only two brief, unilateral pauses in the fighting.
Currently, Russian forces are advancing on several key points on the eastern and northern fronts, and a successful summer offensive could bring them closer to the Kremlin’s strategic goals. Trump hopes that such a meeting will lead to a trilateral summit with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, the format that Russia rejected at the Istanbul talks. For Putin, such a scenario could be an opportunity to draw Trump closer to Moscow’s narrative, directly influencing the US stance. Five possible scenarios after a Trump-Putin meeting:
UNCONDITIONAL CRUISE
This is the most optimistic scenario, but also the least realistic. Russia, seeing gradual gains on the front lines, has no reason to stop fighting now. Such a ceasefire was demanded in May by the West, under threat of harsh sanctions, but was rejected by Moscow. Even the threat of secondary sanctions on China and India is unlikely to force the Kremlin to change course, as these two countries remain resistant to American pressure. If Russia is in a victorious moment on the ground, Putin will prefer to exploit it by the end of the summer military season.
PRAGMATISM AND MORE TALKS
This scenario envisages an agreement to postpone the talks, freezing the front lines during the winter. By October, Putin could have taken several strategic cities in the east such as Pokrovsk, Kostiantynivka or Kupiansk. This would give him the advantage to negotiate from a stronger position. Politically, the Kremlin could use this period to put pressure on Ukraine, raising the issue of delayed elections and challenging Zelensky’s legitimacy. In this way, Russia would seek not only territorial gains, but also the political weakening of Kiev.
LONG-TERM UKRAINIAN RESISTANCE AND HOLDING THE FRONT WITH THE HELP OF THE WESTERN
If the US and Europe continue to provide weapons and financial support, Ukraine could manage to hold its current lines and minimize territorial losses. This would force Putin to accept negotiations because of the slowdown in military advances. A key element of this scenario is the European plan to create a NATO “security force” of tens of thousands of troops, stationed near major cities such as Kiev, Lviv, or Odessa. These troops would not be directly involved in the fighting, but would provide logistics, intelligence, and protection from major Russian attacks. This is one of the most sustainable long-term scenarios for Ukraine, but it requires a strong and ongoing commitment from the West.
DISASTER FOR UKRAINE AND NATO
If, after the Trump-Putin meeting, American support for Ukraine fades, Russia could exploit the weakness of Western unity. Europe could continue to help Kiev, but without US involvement, the balance of power could tip in Moscow’s favor. A Russian advance toward cities like Dnipro, Zaporizhzhya, or even Kiev would be a serious blow to European security. NATO would face a major dilemma: intervene militarily or accept the loss of a de facto ally. This would be a nightmare scenario for Europe – the loss of Ukrainian sovereignty and the increased risk of direct conflict with Russia.
SHOCK FOR PUTIN, A NEW AFGHANISTAN FOR RUSSIA
In this scenario, Russia continues the war for years, losing thousands of troops and suffering severe economic damage. Sanctions could hurt relations with China and India, while the Kremlin’s financial reserves would dwindle. Dissensions within the political and military elite could deepen, especially if the war is perceived as fruitless.
Such a situation would bring similarities to Afghanistan in the 80s, where the Soviet Union withdrew after a long and devastating conflict. This is the only scenario that would mark a clear defeat for Russia, but it requires extraordinary patience and resilience from Ukraine and its allies.