US–Ukraine talks: Outcomes of 2025 and expectations for 2026 Expert opinions on Caliber.Az

The recent talks between U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Florida have become one of the leading topics in the global media. According to the BBC, despite the optimistic tone of the statements made by the participants, many outlets agree that it is still premature to speak of tangible progress in the peace process.

The New York Times notes that following his meeting with Zelenskyy, Trump struck a generally positive tone but refrained from making any claims about an imminent end to the war. According to the U.S. President, it will take several weeks before it becomes clearer whether there are grounds to expect the signing of a peace agreement.

Zelenskyy, for his part, described the talks as “a really great discussion,” during which the delegations were able to discuss “all the topics.” He emphasised that both sides recognise the importance of security guarantees for Ukraine.

Daniel Fried, an American diplomat with previous experience working in Russia and Eastern Europe, believes that progress in discussions on security guarantees and Ukraine’s reconstruction can be seen as a positive signal. At the same time, he cautions that the issue of “disputed territories” could become a serious obstacle to advancing a peaceful settlement.

The expert points out that Trump and Zelenskyy largely avoided addressing the issue of the part of the Donetsk region from which Vladimir Putin is demanding the withdrawal of Ukrainian forces.

“There is no evidence that Russia is yet ready to deal seriously,” Fried noted.

At the same time, he considers it good news that the more actively the United States is involved in discussing a peace plan, the harder it will be for Moscow to drag out the process and resort to its familiar tactic of avoiding concrete actions.

Sky News reports that the meeting between Trump and Zelenskyy in Florida did not yield tangible progress towards peace, although the talks were conducted in a distinctly optimistic atmosphere. Throughout the meeting, Zelenskyy remained composed, but during the joint press conference—when Trump stated that “Russia wants to see Ukraine succeed”—the Ukrainian president allowed himself a slight smirk.

The outlet notes that Trump is likely genuinely interested in ending the war; however, for him it is less critical under what specific terms this outcome is achieved.

CNN also points to the absence of any breakthrough decisions following Sunday’s conversation. At the same time, unlike a number of previous meetings, Donald Trump on this occasion publicly praised Zelenskyy and expressed confidence that a peace agreement could be within reach.

According to Fox News, the talks between the U.S. and Ukrainian presidents may bring closer the prospect of a telephone conversation between Zelenskyy and Putin. A source cited by the channel claims that such contact would represent a diplomatic success for Trump. Journalists, however, note that Vladimir Putin has refused to engage in telephone talks with the Ukrainian leader for more than five years and has so far shown no genuine change in his position.

On December 29, 2025, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated that the issue of a phone call between Putin and Zelenskyy is not currently under consideration.

Do the outcomes of this meeting contain at least moderately encouraging signals that would allow for the possibility of even a temporary peace between Ukraine and Russia in 2026?

Well-known international political commentators shared their assessments with Caliber.Az.

Konstantin Bondarenko, head of the “Ukrainian Politics” Foundation and a political analyst and historian, believes that the talks between Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Donald Trump provide no grounds to speak of a breakthrough or serious change, despite the optimistic statements that were made.

“Zelenskyy is categorically opposed to the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from the Donetsk region, demands that Ukraine’s interests be taken into account in the operation of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, and also insists on the deployment of a ‘peacekeeping contingent’ from European countries on Ukrainian territory.

All of this is unacceptable from Russia’s point of view, which has already threatened to raise the level of its demands in the negotiating process and has declared its intention to seize Zaporizhzhia,” the analyst explained.

According to him, Zelenskyy is increasingly relying on the patronage of European leaders who, Bondarenko claims, are openly sabotaging Trump’s peace initiatives and calling for the continuation of the war.

“Under such conditions, it is impossible to speak of a near-term peace — at least until Zelenskyy is confronted with the risk of a real loss of power or even his life. Only the complete removal of the ‘party of war’ in Ukraine and its replacement by a ‘party of peace’ can lead to a compromise,” Bondarenko believes.

Olga Kurnosova, a Russian political analyst and editor-in-chief of the After Empire portal, notes that the most encouraging aspect of the meeting is Donald Trump’s attitude.

“At the very least, the talks between the United States and Ukraine were conducted in a positive spirit. As for Vladimir Putin, his desire to continue the war has long been no secret to anyone. It is no coincidence that a fake story about the shelling of Putin’s residence was launched by the Russian Foreign Ministry.

At the same time, the United States, with its extensive intelligence capabilities, clearly understands that this was indeed a fabrication. Nevertheless, in my view, there are also certain signs inside Russia that peace may be approaching. One such sign is the near-total clearing of Russia’s political space of any figures with real prominence. The full range of methods is being used — from killings (including that of the founder of the ‘Espanola’ battalion) to court sentences (the arrest of Sergei Udaltsov).

Based on this, I believe that the likelihood of reaching a ceasefire in the new year is quite high,” Kurnosova concludes.

Yevhen Mahda, Director of the Kyiv-based Institute of Global Policy, believes that at this stage the talks between Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Donald Trump provide no grounds to speak of a breakthrough and are largely demonstrative in nature, reflecting the current political interests of the parties — above all, those of Ukraine.

“Ukraine, as a country in a state of conflict, cannot afford to completely ignore the peace agenda, while Donald Trump has consistently spoken about the need to end the war.

At the same time, recent developments indicate a certain similarity in the approaches of Trump and Putin to a possible resolution of the conflict, including an orientation towards terms that largely correspond to the Kremlin’s position, as well as subsequent economic pressure on Ukraine,” the political analyst noted.

According to him, Trump’s statements suggesting that Russia is allegedly interested in Ukraine’s prosperity should be viewed through the prism of his own political and economic perception of the situation.

“Within the context of the current negotiations, many questions remain unanswered. In particular, when talk turns to the agreements being ‘90 per cent ready,’ one cannot help recalling the previously discussed 20 points of the peace plan, which were formulated on the basis of a broader agenda of 28 points.

From my perspective, it is difficult to speak of achieving a sustainable peace on the basis of such documents. The sooner this is recognised in Washington, Brussels, and other European capitals, the greater the chances of finding more realistic solutions,” Mahda believes.