Content1. Ukraine’s position shifts2. Ukraine’s “red lines” agreed with Europe and the U.S.3. Possible scenarios and expert opinionsKyiv is preparing for a complex diplomatic game, as the Trump–Putin meeting could affect the outcome of the protracted war, and it’s unclear in whose favor. President Zelenskyy has already outlined what he is willing to discuss at a possible future meeting with the Russian leader, and what is strictly off-limits under any circumstances. It should be noted that compared to summer 2024, when the President’s Office continued to insist on a military victory, the forceful return of Crimea and Donbas, held peace summits, and drew up “victory plans,” Ukraine’s position has significantly weakened over the past year. Now, a mutual ceasefire and holding the current front lines would be sufficient. Ukraine urgently needs peace in this war of attrition, which cannot be said for Russia, especially as Trump still hesitates to strengthen sanctions, clinging to his belief in his own genius in negotiations. Espreso will explain all this and more in detail.Ukraine’s position shifts                                                                                                                                                     Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Donald Trump on February 28,                                                                                                                                                                                                                              photo: Getty ImagesFrom last summer, when Ukraine held the Global Peace Summit in Switzerland, to August this year, ahead of Donald Trump’s talks with Vladimir Putin in Alaska, Ukraine’s diplomatic position has undergone significant changes.In 2024, Kyiv actively promoted Zelenskyy’s Peace Formula, emphasizing victory, the restoration of 1991 borders, the withdrawal of Russian troops, reparations, and punishment for the aggressor. Over the year, however, this rhetoric has shifted toward pragmatic compromises driven by military difficulties, public fatigue, and changes in the geopolitical landscape due to Trump’s stance.But this shift has happened gradually and often with some “creaking.”Although the successful Kursk operation by the Ukrainian Armed Forces in August boosted confidence and increased global interest, the autumn brought a series of disappointments. Amid ammunition and mobilization issues, Russia’s active advances, and partner fatigue, Ukraine canceled the second Global Peace Summit, which had planned to invite Russians (they declined due to their successes). Instead, a Victory Plan emerged (more sanctions, accelerated arms deliveries, Euro-Atlantic integration). For the first time, Ukraine expressed willingness to resume negotiations with Russia, but only after security guarantees. Messages also began to appear from the authorities suggesting that Crimea would eventually be returned diplomatically.After Trump’s victory in November 2024, when he refused to allocate funds to support Ukraine and began hinting at territorial compromises and a frozen conflict to achieve immediate peace, Kyiv shifted its focus to Europe. While President Biden remained in office, Zelenskyy tried to persuade him to make Ukraine a NATO member and provide more weapons, but this did not happen. As a result, Ukraine’s official rhetoric shifted from a victorious war to a “just peace.” Zelenskyy stated that 2025 should be the year of diplomatic settlement and the end of the war.A real cold shower for Ukrainian diplomacy came during the controversial personal meeting between President Zelenskyy and President Trump in the Oval Office on February 28. On camera, the U.S. leader scolded Zelenskyy and effectively kicked him out of the White House. For several days, American arms supplies were also paused. Many analysts later explained that Trump wanted to clearly signal that he was not Biden and was not interested in anything that would escalate the war, only in a diplomatic resolution of the conflict, so everyone had to follow his lead. As a result, Zelenskyy not only changed his military attire, but a meeting also took place in Jeddah, where the Ukrainian delegation talked with the Americans and agreed to an unconditional month-long ceasefire if Putin accepted it. However, the Russians continued to play their own game with Trump.Although the U.S. and Russian leaders “chatted politely” by phone several times, there were meetings of special representatives, and the Trump administration, and Trump personally, insisted that everything was going according to plan and that Russia would soon be ready for peace, this did not happen. Putin deliberately delayed, using multi-day public pauses in the war, such as around Easter and May 9 (while the front remained intense), and visibly stepped up attacks on civilian cities, especially Kyiv. Drone strikes increased daily, and the Russian army launched its summer military campaign, which continues successfully to this day.Unable to change the situation by military force, Ukraine decided to seize the diplomatic initiative. In mid-May, the Istanbul process was resumed, when Zelenskyy waited for Putin in Turkey, but he did not dare to come. Essentially, Zelenskyy wanted to clearly show Trump and the world that the problem lies not with Ukraine, but with Russia, which does not want to end the war. The meetings in Istanbul did lead to significant mutual exchanges of prisoners of war, but had no impact on the course of the war. Meanwhile, the Kremlin continued to issue its maximal demands: Ukrainian forces must withdraw from four regions, NATO membership must be prohibited, sanctions on Russia lifted, Russian declared an official language, the legality of the Russian Orthodox Church restored, and so on. This is the rhetoric of a country that believes it will ultimately win, dictating the terms of capitulation rather than seeking compromise. An aggressor who has not been defeated continues to be an aggressor.Ultimately, after several “China’s final warnings,” Trump threatened Russia with major sanctions if they did not agree to peace by August 8. “He likes him. He doesn’t like him. He likes him…” — Der Spiegel ironically commented on Trump’s wavering stance toward Putin.In the end, the sanctions were never imposed (though they were threatened once again), and the two leaders agreed to a personal meeting. The world now watches with skepticism what a face-to-face conversation between war criminal Putin and the egocentric Trump, who dreams of a Nobel Peace Prize, might bring — possibly at the expense of Ukrainian interests.“Russia’s economic growth has stalled. Oil revenues have dropped sharply. The budget deficit has risen to its highest level in over three decades. Inflation and interest rates remain painfully high. Outside the country’s banks, some insiders are sounding the alarm about an impending debt crisis,” Bloomberg explains, outlining Putin’s economic motives for meeting with Trump.Ukraine’s “red lines” agreed with Europe and the U.S.                                                                                                                                          Meeting of European leaders with Zelenskyy earlier this year.                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Photo: Getty ImagesEven after the failed meeting with Trump in February, the Ukrainian authorities realized they needed to act in coordination with European allies if they wanted results in negotiations with the U.S. Therefore, Zelenskyy began holding joint calls so that everyone could hear the U.S. president’s words together and influence him, forming a unified position, since it is the Europeans who will continue to live next to Russia.This approach was applied after Trump announced his meeting with Putin in Alaska. The President’s Office immediately stepped up diplomatic efforts, holding more than 30 talks and consultations with partners.“Different parts of the world, different perspectives, but shared positions. This war must end. Russia must be pressured for a fair peace. We must draw on the experience of Ukraine and our partners to prevent being deceived by Russia,” wrote the President of Ukraine.On Wednesday, August 13, ahead of the Trump–Putin meeting, Volodymyr Zelenskyy held the sixth session of the Coalition of the Willing in Berlin together with the German Chancellor, and also took part in a joint videoconference with Trump and other Western leaders. The Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) called this the “last chance” for Europe to influence Trump and prevent a deal that would weaken Kyiv. However, CEPS notes that Europe’s absence in Alaska is already a victory for Putin.Analysts generally say that this rapid diplomacy by Ukraine and Europe is a response to the fear of the country being “sold out,” similar to the 1938 Munich Agreement, when the German aggressor was appeased for a year at the cost of partitioning Czechoslovakia with the consent of Britain and France. Europe’s greatest fear is that Trump will “sell” Ukraine to Putin, allowing Russia to regroup and launch an offensive against another country on the continent. Politico writes that “Europe swings between hope and fear” ahead of the Trump–Putin meeting.“We agreed on shared principles, five principles. This is the negotiation format: everything concerning Ukraine must be discussed exclusively with Ukraine. We need to prepare a trilateral format for talks. There must be a ceasefire — number one. There must be truly reliable security guarantees. Today, President Trump expressed support for this and America’s readiness to participate. Russia cannot have a veto over Ukraine’s European and NATO prospects. Peace negotiations must be combined with proper pressure on Russia. Sanctions should be strengthened if Russia does not agree to a ceasefire in Alaska,” President Zelenskyy summarized the discussion outcomes.In other words, Ukraine, Europe, and the U.S. reached a common conclusion that:Peace in Ukraine is possible only with Ukraine’s consent;There must be a meeting between Zelenskyy, Putin, and Trump;A ceasefire must take place;Ukraine must receive security guarantees;Ukraine should decide its own path regarding NATO and EU membership.Notably, this list contains no territorial references, as these provoke the greatest differences of opinion. In conversations with journalists, Trump mentioned several times that a territorial exchange should take place. “It will be an exchange of concessions regarding borders and territories,” he said on Thursday, August 14. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and French President Emmanuel Macron also noted that territorial issues could be discussed, but that Ukraine must make the decisions.As shown by nationwide polling from the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology, Ukrainian society is ready to discuss territorial issues. Data from June 10 indicate that 43% of the population are willing to consider the option of “de facto recognition of occupation without de jure” in order to achieve peace as quickly as possible.President Zelenskyy has repeatedly emphasized that there will be no territorial exchange, as handing Donbas over to Russia would open the door for them to claim other regions of Ukraine. Accordingly, the Ukrainian authorities insist that a ceasefire must come first, paving the way for discussions about territories. In any case, Kyiv and Europe are not prepared to legally recognize de facto territorial changes resulting from Russian aggression. Any agreements with Putin, therefore, would not mark the end of the war.“A ceasefire is possible, but ending the war as a result of a ceasefire at this stage seems impossible,” former Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba told ABC. “There is a famous saying that if you see the light at the end of the tunnel, make sure it is not an incoming train. The light of the ceasefire at the end of the tunnel of the Russia-Ukraine war is actually an incoming train.”Possible scenarios and expert opinionsThe results of Friday’s meeting between the U.S. and Russian leaders remain unpredictable for everyone. This is the essence of Trump’s politics — achieving outcomes through unpredictability.“Trump must do more than just listen — he will need to demonstrate his negotiating skills and convince the Russian autocrat that his maximalist demands will bring Moscow nothing but more deaths and economic devastation,” emphasizes the New York Post, an outlet the American president likes to read.Both in Washington and Moscow, officials say they do not expect major outcomes from the Alaska talks, though they mutually praise each other’s willingness for diplomacy and are happy to shake hands on camera. Trump wants to look Putin in the eye and, it seems, gauge whether he has gone mad, as he has several times rejected generous deals Trump offered. Recall that the U.S. was ready not only to halt Ukraine’s path to NATO but even to legally recognize Crimea as Russian and sign favorable economic agreements with Russia, not to mention freezing the frontline. Meanwhile, Putin, besides asserting himself as a global leader, may also try to convince Trump of his fixed idea that Ukraine is an “artificial state” and bring historical materials for “debates.” The conversation may therefore resemble the blind talking to the deaf — essentially just a simulation.Indeed, former Ukrainian Ambassador to the U.S. Valeriy Chaly notes that the Alaska meeting may be nothing more than an “imitation of peace talks.”“Ukraine needs either a full ceasefire or none at all, because Putin wants a ceasefire only where it is convenient for him,” Valentyn Badrak, director of the Center for Army, Conversion, and Disarmament Studies, told Espreso emphasizing that Kyiv should not halt its strikes deep into Russian territory, as the Russians would not adhere to their own agreements anyway. Note that the President’s Office considers control of the skies a prerequisite for starting negotiations with Russia.Meanwhile, international affairs expert and head of the NGO Ukraine in NATO, Yurii Romanyuk, told Espreso that he expects nothing positive from this meeting. On the contrary, the U.S., following talks with Russia, could halt the supply of any missiles to Ukraine, even those funded by European partners.If the conversation between Trump and Putin is productive and a constructive trilateral meeting with Zelenskyy takes place, it will be possible to agree on a complete ceasefire, but even then, many experts are skeptical about freezing the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. This would inevitably become a “new Minsk” for Zelenskyy, but with worse territorial outcomes. The war would enter a waiting phase, giving Russia time to rebuild its forces and economy through the lifting of sanctions.“The scale of hostilities will significantly decrease, but tensions along the front line will remain. The sense of war will become confined to the front line and frontline regions. The U.S. and EU will significantly ease sanctions on Russia and noticeably normalize relations with Moscow. Diplomatic attention to Ukraine will decline. Ukraine’s accession to the EU and NATO will become a forbidden topic in public communications. Russia will begin to recover economically and strengthen its military-industrial complex. The question arises: what to do with the Ukrainian army? Meanwhile, the country will plunge into the whirl of elections,” sketches this hypothetical scenario political scientist and Ukrainian Armed Forces officer Mykhailo Basarab.That is why security guarantees are so important for Ukraine. What could stop Putin from attacking again in, say, two or three years? This question has long been discussed, but without results. Ideally, Ukraine wants NATO membership or at least enough funding and weapons for deterrence. Meanwhile, Trump claims that an economic agreement signed with Ukraine already serves as a guarantee, and Europe initially planned to send 30,000 troops to Ukraine after peace was achieved but has now abandoned that idea. In short, no definitive answer exists yet.Ultimately, Friday will serve as a preliminary meeting where Trump and Putin will broadly discuss the relationship between their countries (nuclear deterrence, economic incentives, etc.). Ukraine will be an important topic, but without Zelenskyy’s participation, the war will not stop; at most, the U.S. and Russia may agree, or fail to agree, on a shared position. The key question is whether President Trump can pressure the Kremlin dictator or if Putin will outmaneuver him again. Or perhaps fate will intervene, and something unpredictable will occur…In any case, we are witnessing a crucial stage of geopolitical change. As experts from The Washington Post emphasize, the Alaska summit represents a return to great-power politics, where major countries negotiate and shape global processes, determining the fate of smaller nations. Through Trump’s efforts, Putin and Russia are once again at the table of such players.