Could peace in Ukraine be closer than we think, or is it just another diplomatic mirage?
As reported by Axios, President Trump recently hosted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Washington, where the focus was on ending the brutal conflict with Russia, though their approaches sharply diverged on how to get there.
Zelensky arrived with a clear agenda: securing U.S.-made Tomahawk missiles to strengthen Ukraine’s defenses against Russian aggression. His chief of staff had already signaled to Axios that these powerful weapons were a top priority for Kyiv. But Trump, ever the dealmaker, opened the meeting by expressing hope that such military escalation wouldn’t be necessary.
Trump revealed he’d spoken with Russian President Vladimir Putin just a day before Zelensky’s visit, underscoring his urgency to wrap up the war. He’s not mincing words about wanting a quick resolution, even announcing plans for a summit with Putin in Budapest soon.
Zelensky, for his part, showed openness to direct talks, stating he’s ready to meet Putin anytime, anywhere—though Putin has so far declined. It’s a frustrating stalemate, and one wonders if Moscow is even serious about the negotiating table.
Trump acknowledged the deep animosity between the two leaders, suggesting it might be more practical to shuttle between them separately to broker a deal. “I know there's a lot of bad blood between Zelensky and Putin, and therefore it might be easier for me to hold separate meetings with both of them in order to reach a deal,” Trump said. That’s a classic business tactic—divide and conquer—but can it work in a war zone?
The Tomahawk missile request remains a sticking point, with Zelensky even offering to trade Ukraine’s drones for the advanced weaponry. Trump confirmed U.S. interest in those drones but was blunt about America’s own security needs, casting doubt on any immediate missile transfer.
“They are very dangerous weapons. It could mean an escalation,” Trump cautioned about the Tomahawks. He’s not wrong—handing over such firepower could easily inflame an already volatile situation, something conservatives wary of endless foreign entanglements might appreciate.
Yet Trump also hinted that merely having Tomahawks on the table as an option might nudge Putin toward negotiations. It’s a clever play—dangle the big stick but keep the focus on peace talks. Will Putin bite, or is this just more geopolitical theater?
Trump admitted that Putin might be stalling, possibly “playing for time” in these discussions. It’s a sobering note, especially given the pattern of raised hopes followed by disappointment after Trump’s calls with the Russian leader.
Zelensky, meanwhile, remains skeptical about Putin’s commitment to any real peace process, a sentiment echoed by his team in talks with Axios. Last month, Zelensky argued that missiles capable of striking deep into Russia could force Putin’s hand at the negotiating table. It’s a bold strategy, but without U.S. hardware, it’s just theory.
Trump, ever the optimist, still believes a resolution could come soon, perhaps even before his upcoming meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping. That’s a tight timeline, and one has to wonder if it’s wishful thinking or a genuine breakthrough on the horizon.
For conservatives, Trump’s approach offers a refreshing contrast to the endless war drumbeat often pushed by progressive foreign policy hawks. His reluctance to hand over heavy weaponry like Tomahawks signals a desire to avoid deeper U.S. entanglement while still keeping pressure on Russia. It’s a tightrope walk, but one that respects American interests first.
Still, Zelensky’s plight can’t be ignored—Ukraine’s fight for survival against a larger aggressor deserves empathy, even if the solution isn’t a blank check of military aid.
Trump’s insistence on separate talks and a Budapest summit shows he’s willing to put in the hours to end this conflict. The question remains: can he outmaneuver Putin’s apparent delays and bring both sides to a lasting agreement?
