Sunday meeting Donald Trump Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky made no dramatic statements, sweeping statements or signed a peace deal. This result shouldn’t surprise anyone. After nearly four years of war, diplomacy would never lead to a single press conference or photo opportunity.

President Trump himself later struck a cautious note, saying, “I think we’re going to get it done,” while acknowledging that the effort “may not be going well.” Zelensky said that the talks were constructive and serious, and stressed that Ukraine remains committed to achieving a just peace that ensures long-term security. Both statements point to the same reality: The process is underway, but hard decisions lie ahead.

Still, the meeting was important.

‘Only Trump can stop Russia’: Ukraine energy executive warns millions facing cold winter

According to Reuters and the Wall Street Journal, the purpose of the Trump-Zelensky talks is not to ultimately achieve peace but to close the gap in development frameworks – often described as 20 point plan — before Trump had direct contact with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The framework emphasizes Ukraine’s sovereignty, enforcement mechanisms and security guarantees, but the most sensitive issues – territory and the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant – are left unaddressed.

President Donald Trump greets Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the Mar-a-Lago club on December 28, 2025 in Palm Beach, Florida. (Joe Reddell/Getty Images)

In other words, diplomacy has entered a more serious phase. Not because peace is coming, but because of exhaustion. Ukraine continues to suffer devastating losses. Russia bled men and treasure. Europe is strained by economic and security pressures. From Eastern Europe to the Middle East to the Indo-Pacific, the United States faces growing global instability. Fatigue does not guarantee peace—but it creates the political space for peace.

So cautious optimism is warranted. But optimism without realism would be dangerous.

The central question hanging over Sunday’s meeting is not whether a framework exists – it does – but whether it is based on a false assumption that still dominates much Western thinking: that Vladimir Putin is a rational actor who can be content with partial concessions. The record shows otherwise.

U.S. official claims progress in talks to achieve ‘lasting peace’ between Ukraine and Russia

Since the invasion began, Putin has responded to compromise with escalation, restraint with expansion, and negotiations with continued violence. Even as peace efforts accelerate this week, Russia continues to launch missile and drone attacks across Ukraine — a fact confirmed by the media. These attacks are not random. They are signals. Putin either intends to continue the war outright, or he is deliberately using force to shape the diplomatic environment—creating urgency, fear, and pressure for Ukraine to make concessions.

In either case, the implication is clear: Putin will not stop until he is forced to – or until he gets everything he asks for.

This reality should bring sobriety to any discussion of “land for peace.” Territorial concessions dominate the headlines because maps are tangible and emotionally charged. But land is not the decisive variable. Security is.

Multiple media reports say Ukraine is seeking what officials call “Article 5-like” security guarantees — binding commitments from the United States and its allies to deal with future scenarios. Russian aggression. Zelensky has even stated that he is willing to halt Ukraine’s application to join NATO if such guarantees are credible. This alone highlights how important this issue is for Kyiv.

Ukraine has learned the hard way that vague guarantees are worthless. The 1994 Budapest Memorandum did not stop Russia. Previous ceasefires have not deterred Russia. The unenforced agreement did not stop Russia. Any peace that trades Ukrainian territory for toothless promises is not peace—but a pause before the next attack.

Since the invasion began, Putin has responded to compromise with escalation, restraint with expansion, and negotiations with continued violence.

Therefore, security guarantees must be specific, automatic and enforceable. Clear trigger. Defined response. Real consequences. Not a committee that deliberates while the missiles are dropping. Not sanctions that would take months of political wrangling to restructure. Reuters reported that the draft framework under discussion includes oversight mechanisms and penalties for non-compliance – an encouraging sign if implemented seriously.

Trump, Zelensky say Ukraine peace deal close, but ‘thorny issues’ remain after Florida talks

This is where President Trump’s role becomes decisive.

Trump has leverage that few leaders have precisely because of his willingness to combine pressure with negotiation. he can tighten Sanctions enforcement and closing avenues of evasion that weaken existing measures. He can impose quick recovery penalties, which take effect immediately upon violation. He could maintain military aid sufficient to increase the costs of Russia’s renewed offensive. And only after verifying compliance can he offer conditional exits – economic relief or diplomatic re-engagement.

The goal is not to convince Putin of Western goodwill. Just change his cost calculation.

Zelenskyy inspired by ‘very good’ Christmas talks to us

On November 25, 2025, a residential building was severely damaged after Russia attacked Kiev, Ukraine. (Yevgeny Maloletka/AP)

Putin has repeatedly shown that if he believes that time and fear are on his side, he will suffer economic, military, and diplomatic pain. He showed no willingness to back down from strength. Any peace framework that fails to take this model into account risks collapsing when attention shifts elsewhere.

Click here for more Fox News views

Europe should pay attention close. This war is not just about Ukraine. This is a test of whether Europe’s borders can once again be changed by force. A solution that assumes Putin can “manage” through compromise alone will not stabilize the continent; it will trigger the next crisis. History has not been kind to illusions of restraint when dealing with expansionist regimes.

The most realistic takeaway from Sunday’s meeting: Diplomacy has not failed, but it has yet to prove itself. An alliance between Washington and Kyiv is a necessary first step, but not sufficient. This effort has a chance if President Trump continues to engage in dialogue with Putin and provide a unified framework, clear red lines, and reliable enforcement tools.

Click here to download the Fox News app

If not – if peace is pursued without strength, execution and clarity – then Sunday’s meeting will be seen not as the beginning of the end but as another moment in which the West mistakes words for power.

Peace is still possible. But only if we abandon the comforting illusion that Vladimir Putin can settle for half-measures and reach an agreement that makes new aggression undoubtedly costly.

Click here to read more from Robert Maginnis