Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky listens during a bilateral meeting with US President Donald Trump on the sidelines of the 74th session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York.
In a candid interview with the BBC on 18 July, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky outlined a rather hyperbolic claim about a possible end to the active phase of the conflict with Russia in the next few months: “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, outlining a vision of strategic diplomacy.
However, Zelensky 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, to which Russia was not invited.
At the same time, Kyiv has extended an olive branch, signalling 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 reaching out, the Russian foreign ministry has dismissed the proposal of attending a second summit.
Zelensky’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,” he said.
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 of the two sides and the complexity of reaching a consensus.
Zelensky’s recent shift in tone marks a significant departure from his earlier stance. Until now, he has been notably reluctant to engage with Moscow in any negotiations, direct or indirect. 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.
Apparently, this change can be traced to the growing possibility of Donald Trump winning back the Oval Office in the November elections. The prospect of a Trump presidency, with a very different foreign policy approach from that of Joe Biden, seems to have prompted Zelensky to reconsider his strategy.
Engaging Russia at the negotiating table might be an attempt to preempt potential shifts in US support and to solidify Ukraine’s position before any changes in the international landscape. That’s why, last week, after a gap of years, Zelensky made a call to Trump after the recent failed assassination attempt.
Announcing the call on Twitter, Zelensky revealed they had agreed to a future “personal” meeting to deliberate on peace with Russia. “Ukraine will always be grateful to the United States for its help in strengthening our ability to resist Russian terror,” Zelensky stated.
The conversation took on an additional layer of diplomacy as Zelensky congratulated Trump on securing the Republican nomination and condemned the assassination attempt. Trump, in turn, characterised the exchange as a “very good call”, expressing his intention of working towards 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 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 took another twist with Trump’s choice of JD Vance as his running mate. Vance has been vocal about Europe’s reliance on US 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 US support if they refuse.
The prevailing belief is that Vance would advocate for a deal freezing the front lines. This might include assurances to Russia about further Nato expansion eastward, while offering Ukraine certain security guarantees. Alternatively, the US and its allies might commit to supplying Ukraine with sufficient arms to defend against future Russian attacks.
In addition, 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 Zelensky has started talking about inviting Moscow to the next session of the peace summit on Ukraine.
After two and a half years of valiant defence, it would be painful for Ukraine to accept a peace deal proposed by Trump and his allies.
Politically, it would be a tough sell for Zelensky 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 US support, financing and weapons could concentrate minds and push Ukraine toward negotiations — as reflected by the recent change in Zelensky’s tone.
Being coerced into peace talks by an external power such as the US might paradoxically aid Zelensky politically in selling the idea of negotiations to his people. This external pressure could provide him with the leverage needed to justify difficult concessions, framing the talks as a necessary step to preserve vital international support and, ultimately, secure Ukraine’s future.
Given the complex dynamics at play, Zelensky’s recent hints at engaging with Moscow — whether through indirect talks or participation in summits — seem strategically calculated. As Trump’s potential push for significant concessions looms, Zelensky might be laying the groundwork to preemptively address these demands.
By initiating preliminary dialogue with Russia, he could be positioning himself to justify or mitigate harder concessions if Trump presses for them. This manoeuvre will allow Zelensky to frame any future compromises as part of a broader, pre-existing diplomatic effort, thereby managing both domestic and international expectations more effectively.
Dr Imran Khalid is a freelance columnist on international affairs based in Karachi, Pakistan. He qualified as a physician from Dow Medical University in 1991 and has a master’s degree in international relations from Karachi University.