Trump-Zelenskyy Talks Revive Hopes but Future Imperfect: Fried
US President with European leaders at the Oval Office! (Image The White House)
Ambassador Daniel Fried argues that US-European commitments to Ukraine’s long-term security remain the key to a sustainable settlement
By TRH Global Affairs Desk
NEW DELHI, August 20, 2025 — The White House meetings on August 18 between US President Donald Trump, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and key European leaders offered a “welcome recovery” for US policy on Ukraine, according to Ambassador Daniel Fried, writing in Just Security.
Fried noted that the Washington engagements came just three days after what appeared to be a US retreat in Anchorage, where Trump’s talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin failed to secure a ceasefire and instead reflected concessions to Moscow’s maximalist demands.
“Trump went to Anchorage having urged a ceasefire and threatening intensified economic pressure on Russia if Putin didn’t agree. But Putin refused and Trump seemed to retreat, dropping his demand and giving up potential leverage,” Fried observed.
At Anchorage, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio downplayed the utility of further economic pressure on Russia — a move Fried criticized as ignoring the hard-won lessons that adversaries must be confronted from a position of strength.
By contrast, the White House meetings with Zelenskyy and European leaders shifted focus back to Ukraine’s long-term security. Fried underlined that any settlement “will not be just as long as any part of Ukraine is under Russian occupation,” but it could be sustainable if anchored in credible Western security commitments.
One option under discussion, according to US envoy Steve Witkoff, is an “Article 5-like” guarantee for Ukraine — short of NATO membership but providing meaningful military backing from the U.S. and Europe. Fried cautioned, however, that Russia might seek to distort such guarantees by demanding veto power over Western assistance, a trap Washington and its allies must avoid.
On the contentious territorial question, Fried argued that the most viable solution would be a provisional demarcation line, akin to Cold War precedents in Germany or the Korean Armistice, rather than rewarding aggression through formal “land swaps.” While an “ugly peace” that cedes territory may tempt some negotiators, Fried stressed that only robust US-European support for Ukraine’s defence would make such an agreement sustainable.
Recalling Finland’s painful compromise with the Soviet Union during the 1939–40 Winter War, Fried wrote that Ukraine “deserves better,” but may face similarly difficult choices. The essential test, he argued, is whether Washington and Europe are willing to “stand by the courageous leaders and people of Ukraine and stare down Russia’s predictable demands.”
Follow The Raisina Hills on WhatsApp, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, and LinkedIn
About The Author
