In a candid interview with the BBC on July 18, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy outlined a rather hyperbolic claim about the possible end of the active phase of the conflict with Russia by year-end. “I believe that if we are united and follow, for example, the format of the peace summit, we can end the hot stage of the war. We can try to do it by the end of this year,” he stated, echoing a vision of strategic diplomacy. However, Zelenskyy remained tight-lipped about the specifics, promising only that a concrete plan would be forthcoming. This cautious optimism comes on the heels of a global peace summit held in Switzerland in June, where Russia was not invited. At the same time, Kyiv has extended an olive branch, signaling its intention to invite a Russian representative to a follow-up conference. The goal is to present Moscow with a comprehensive peace plan crafted in collaboration with international allies. However, despite Ukraine’s outreach, the Russian Foreign Ministry has already dismissed the proposal to attend a second summit.
Zelenskyy’s latest remarks reflect his “overhauled” strategy for Ukraine’s path to peace: leveraging global pressure to coax Russia into diplomacy. “It doesn’t mean that all territories are won back by force. I think the power of diplomacy can help. The world must exert pressure on Russia and force it to consider a diplomatic settlement,” Zelenskyy articulated. Direct negotiations between Kyiv and Moscow have been in abeyance since the fruitless talks of early 2022. The hiatus in dialogue underscores the entrenched positions and the complexity of reaching a consensus. Zelenskyy’s recent shift in tone marks a significant departure from his earlier stance. Until now, Zelenskyy had been notably reluctant to engage with Moscow in any direct or indirect negotiations. However, his latest overture, inviting Russia to participate in the second episode of the global summit on the Russia-Ukraine war, suggests a strategic pivot.
Relation to U.S. politics
Apparently, this change can be traced to the growing possibility of U.S. presidential runner and former President Donald Trump winning back the Oval Office after the November elections. The prospect of a Trump presidency, with a much “different” foreign policy approach than U.S. President Joe Biden, seems to have prompted Zelenskyy to reconsider his strategy. Engaging Russia at the negotiating table might be an attempt to preempt potential shifts in U.S. support and to solidify Ukraine’s position before any changes in the international landscape. That’s why, last week, after a gap of exactly years, Zelenskyy made a call to Trump after the failed assassination attempt. Announcing the call on Twitter, Zelenskyy revealed that both leaders agreed to a future “personal” meeting to deliberate on peace with Russia. “Ukraine will always be grateful to the U.S. for its help in strengthening our ability to resist Russian terror,” Zelenskyy stated. The conversation took on an additional layer of diplomacy as Zelenskyy congratulated Trump on securing the Republican nomination and condemned the assassination attempt against him. Trump, in turn, characterized the exchange as a “very good call,” expressing his intent to work toward negotiating a peace deal.
Ironically, Trump has repeatedly pledged to end the war in Ukraine within 24 hours, a promise that has sparked both hope and controversy. Reports suggest this could involve compelling Ukraine to cede territory. Adding to the complexity, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, known for his Kremlin-friendly stance, recently met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow, followed by a visit to Trump in Florida. Orban claims that Trump if reelected, would swiftly demand Ukraine engage in peace talks with Russia. The situation took another twist with Trump’s choice of J.D. Vance as his running mate. Vance has been vocal about Europe’s reliance on U.S. security and questions the strategic value of supporting Ukraine, viewing it as a distraction from the more significant rivalry with China. This stance has given birth to concerns about a potential Trump-Vance administration pressuring Ukraine into negotiations with Russia, threatening to withdraw U.S. support if they refuse.
The prevailing belief is that Vance would advocate for a deal freezing the current front lines. This deal might include assurances to Russia against further NATO expansion eastward while offering Ukraine certain security guarantees. Alternatively, the U.S. and its allies might commit to supplying Ukraine with sufficient arms to defend against future Russian attacks. Additionally, Trump and Vance might accept Russian territorial gains in Ukraine in exchange for a commitment to halt further Russian advances and potentially moderate sanctions. Perhaps this is the very reason why Zelenskyy has started talking about inviting Moscow to the next session of the peace summit on Ukraine. For Ukraine, accepting any peace deal currently proposed by Trump and his allies would be quite painful after two and a half years of valiant defense.
Politically, it would be a tough sell for Zelenskyy at home. The prospect of a peace deal that falls short of Ukrainian expectations is understandably unappealing to many citizens. However, the looming threat of losing crucial U.S. support, financing and weapons could concentrate minds and push Ukraine toward negotiations – as reflected by a recent change in Zelenskyy’s tone. Being coerced into peace talks by an external power like the U.S. might paradoxically aid Zelenskyy in politically selling the idea of negotiations to his people. This external pressure could provide Zelenskyy with the leverage needed to justify difficult concessions, framing the talks as necessary to preserve vital international support and ultimately secure Ukraine’s future.
Given the complex dynamics at play, Zelenskyy’s recent indications about engaging with Moscow – whether through indirect talks or participation in summits – seem strategically calculated. As Trump’s potential push for significant concessions looms, Zelenskyy may lay the groundwork to preemptively address these demands. By initiating preliminary dialogues with Russia, he could be positioning himself to justify or mitigate harder concessions if Trump presses for them. This maneuver will allow Zelenskyy to frame future compromises as part of a broader, pre-existing diplomatic effort, thereby managing both domestic and international expectations more effectively.
