They first talked bilaterally, then with leaders of the European "Coalition of the Willing”: the presidents of France and Finland, the prime ministers of Britain and Italy, the German chancellor, the European Commission chief and NATO’s secretary-general.
It was a striking contrast with the previous meeting between Trump and Zelensky here on February 28, which ended in chaos—an undiplomatic shouting match involving Vice President JD Vance and journalists.
This time, there were no quarrels or missteps. Even Zelensky’s black jacket and lack of a tie sparked witty banter that lightened the mood instead of souring it.
Notably, both presidents showed restraint in answering awkward questions from reporters.
Trump declined to go into detail about the possible deployment of US peacekeepers in Ukraine, and spoke only vaguely about security guarantees for Kyiv.
In fact, his initial pledge of US involvement was later watered down in a social media post after the meetings, where he promised merely to help coordinate Europe’s own security commitments for Ukraine.
Zelensky, for his part, deftly sidestepped questions about possible territorial concessions, steering the conversation toward humanitarian issues—prisoner exchanges and the return of Ukrainian children abducted by Russia—or answering with silence.
Territorial concessions remain a deeply sensitive subject in Ukraine.
The good news for Kyiv is that the nightmare scenario predicted by much of Ukrainian public opinion—Zelensky being publicly pressured in the Oval Office into giving up land in exchange for continued aid (mainly intelligence and European purchases of US weapons for Ukraine)—did not materialize.
Zelensky does have tacit public backing to negotiate a ceasefire, but not at any price.
Ukraine’s red lines run along the current front. Ukrainians will not accept surrendering areas still under Kyiv’s control—including about 30 percent of the Donetsk region and large parts of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia—nor will they accept formal recognition of Russia’s annexation of Crimea.
Even more crucial for Ukraine’s future, there is no public consent for curbs on sovereignty— whether blocking NATO and EU integration or downsizing the army.
The Trump-Zelensky summit in Washington went a long way toward repairing the damage from Trump’s meeting with Putin in Alaska last Friday.
Zelensky didn't get the red carpet rolled out for him or a ride in the presidential "Beast," but the show of unity between Europe, the US and Ukraine—staged or not, in the broadcast snippets of their talks—calmed nerves.
For Ukraine and Europe, that alone marks a welcome shift in momentum.
But major uncertainties remain. The next stage of the peace process still lacks clear parameters, especially firm European security guarantees for Ukraine and clarity on America’s role.
Washington remains unwilling to sharply raise the costs of aggression for the Kremlin—for example, through steep US tariffs on buyers of Russian exports (so-called secondary sanctions) or by pushing Europe to confiscate Russia’s frozen assets worth more than USD 200 billion.
And there is still no readiness—in either Moscow or Kyiv—to make the kinds of concessions that could break the stalemate. Despite Russia’s renewed offensives, Ukraine’s army continues to slow the invader’s advance.
The encouraging development is that, for now, Russia finds itself under pressure. Trump has placed the onus on the Kremlin to engage directly with Zelensky.
Until now, Putin has refused, dismissing the Ukrainian leader as a Western puppet with no real legitimacy. He seemed to be waiting for Trump to force Kyiv's capitulation by cutting off arms and intelligence.
That has not happened. At least, not yet.
Tadeusz Iwański
The author is head of the Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova department at the Warsaw-based Centre for Eastern Studies (OSW). From 2006 to 2011, he worked at Polskie Radio dla Zagranicy, the Polish public broadcaster's international service.
Tadeusz Iwański