Summit in Washington: The United States Pledges Commitment to Ukraine’s Security

U.S. President Donald Trump hosted his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky and several European leaders at the White House in Washington on Monday, August 18.

Alongside Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky, who arrived in Washington on Sunday, seven European leaders took part: French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Finnish President Alexander Stubb, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte.

On August 18, Zelensky’s simple black jacket, along with his repeated thanks for U.S. support in the Oval Office, seemed to set the tone for an unprecedented diplomatic offensive. Yet it ended in uncertainty, with a promise of a possible face-to-face meeting between Putin and Zelensky.

Unexpectedly, neither leader ruled out such a meeting. But choosing the city to host such a summit remains delicate and could serve as an excuse not to attend—especially from the Kremlin’s side.

Speaking live from the Oval Office, Donald Trump hailed “excellent progress” in negotiations to end the war in Ukraine, adding that he wished for a “trilateral” meeting between Ukraine, Russia, and the United States. Volodymyr Zelensky declared his readiness to organize such a meeting.

Criticized by Donald Trump over the absence of presidential elections in Ukraine since Russia’s invasion, Zelensky pledged to hold “democratic and legitimate elections” as soon as security is restored across Ukrainian territory.

After a twenty-minute Q&A with reporters in the Oval Office, Trump and Zelensky withdrew to meet the European leaders present at the White House.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte credited Trump with “unlocking” the situation: “This is a crucial breakthrough,” he said at the East Room roundtable. European leaders seemed to have gotten the memo: flattery still works with their host, and they multiplied their compliments (“at your initiative,” “thanks to your leadership”). “We have achieved more progress in two weeks to end the war than in three and a half years. It’s Team Europe and Team USA helping Ukraine,” said Finnish President Alexander Stubb, whom Trump called a “young and powerful man.”

Ahead of the talks with European leaders, Trump stressed that “a peace deal is a decision that only President Zelensky and the Ukrainian people can take.”

Trump also mentioned “the release of more than 1,000 Ukrainian prisoners (…) maybe immediately.”

“I think we had a very good conversation with President Trump, it was really the best—well, maybe the best is still to come—but it was really good, and we spoke about extremely sensitive issues,” Zelensky told the press.

Ursula von der Leyen and Keir Starmer raised the prospect of security guarantees “modeled” on NATO’s Article 5. Ukraine would not join the Atlantic Alliance but would benefit from protection from a “coalition of volunteers.”

“You’ll hear about that later,” Trump replied, insisting that Europe would bear most of the “burden.”

This U.S. support comes at a price: according to documents obtained by the Financial Times, Kyiv agreed to purchase nearly $100 billion worth of U.S. weapons, financed by Europe.

The Financial Times judged that Europeans had managed to “avoid a disastrous outcome for Ukraine, European security, and even the survival of the West.” Just two days earlier in Anchorage, Alaska, Trump had dropped the precondition of ending fighting before peace talks—long seen as a Russian tactic to buy time—and even supported ceding territories vital to Ukraine’s survival as a state.

European leaders had feared Trump might push Zelensky into a bad deal, or punish him for rejecting one. Skillfully coordinated messaging and lavish praise from Europe helped avoid what could have been a catastrophic outcome.

The newspaper noted that Trump appeared to believe “Ukraine could end the war immediately by abandoning the remainder of Donetsk, which would be both politically and militarily suicidal for Zelensky.”

The most promising development, however, was Trump’s pledge that the United States would contribute to security guarantees for Ukraine. Yet confusion remains over what he has in mind. He mentioned U.S. coordination of European efforts and providing air support, while also referring to “Article 5-like protection,” NATO’s mutual defense clause. Steve Witkoff, Trump’s envoy in Moscow, even suggested that Russia might accept such guarantees—another supposed concession from Putin.

But NATO’s Article 5 is deliberately vague, requiring each member to take only the measures it deems necessary. Its strength lies in centralized command, defense planning, and force commitments. Moscow might accept a watered-down version—but only with a veto right, which would make it meaningless.

The Financial Times concluded that absent Ukraine’s NATO membership, the best option would be for the U.S. to provide intelligence and air support to a European mission. But that would still require a readiness to respond to Russian attacks.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz insisted that Ukraine should not be forced to concede territory in any future peace deal with Russia: “The Russian demand for Kyiv to give up the free parts of Donbas is, frankly, like asking the United States to give up Florida,” he said.

Finnish President Alexander Stubb warned that Putin remained “rarely trustworthy.” He asked: “Does he have the courage to attend such a trilateral meeting, or is he once again trying to buy time?”

Chancellor Merz tempered the general optimism with typically German realism: “The next steps will be the hardest,” he warned. “Frankly, we all want to see a ceasefire—at the latest by the next meeting” with Putin. Emmanuel Macron agreed: “To organize a trilateral summit, your idea of demanding a truce to stop the killings is essential,” he told Trump.

“President Putin agrees that Russia would accept security guarantees for Ukraine, and that is one of the central points we must consider, and we will take it into account at this table,” Trump declared at the opening of the meeting with Zelensky and the European leaders.

Trump had announced that he would call the Russian leader after the meeting with Zelensky and European heads of state. But according to the German daily Bild, the U.S. president did not wait for the talks to conclude before contacting Vladimir Putin.

“At the end of these meetings, I called President Putin and made the necessary arrangements for a meeting, at a location to be determined, between President Putin and President Zelensky. After that, we will hold a tripartite meeting including both presidents and myself. This is again an excellent first step in a war that has lasted nearly four years,” Trump wrote on his social network Truth Social, after a phone call that reportedly lasted nearly 40 minutes.

Donald Trump can congratulate himself for elevating the once-hypothetical idea of a Zelensky-Putin meeting. Yet the choice of city remains delicate and could still derail everything.

©2025 – IMPACT EUROPEAN

https://www.instagram.com/p/DNg20qyo3S6/

https://x.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/1957586201541484620

https://x.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/1957549905289126188

About The Author

Gabriel MIHAI

See author's posts