US President Donald Trump is weighing the possibility of holding talks in Alaska with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to negotiate a peace deal in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war.

Trump, Putin, Zelenskyy at One Table? Trump Signals Openness to Three-Way Talks in Ukraine-Russia Peace Effort

Introduction

The war in Ukraine has dominated global headlines for over two years, reshaping international politics, disrupting energy markets, and creating one of the largest humanitarian crises in modern history. With no decisive end in sight, peace talks have remained elusive. Now, former U.S. President Donald Trump has hinted at the possibility of a three-way dialogue involving himself, Russian President Vladimir Putin, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The suggestion, though still speculative, has stirred debates on whether such a meeting could mark a turning point in the conflict—or whether it is more political theater than a genuine pathway to peace.

The Background: A Conflict Without Resolution

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 set off the bloodiest conflict in Europe since World War II. Tens of thousands of soldiers and civilians have been killed, millions displaced, and cities reduced to rubble. Despite repeated diplomatic efforts, including multiple rounds of talks in Belarus, Turkey, and at the United Nations, negotiations have failed to produce a meaningful settlement.

The core issues remain unresolved:

• Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity: Kyiv insists that all Russian forces withdraw from occupied regions, including Crimea.

• Russia’s strategic demands: Moscow continues to seek recognition of Crimea as Russian territory and autonomy for parts of eastern Ukraine.

• Western involvement: The U.S., NATO, and EU remain staunch supporters of Ukraine, supplying weapons and financial aid while imposing severe sanctions on Russia.

Against this backdrop, the idea of Trump stepping in as a negotiator is both controversial and intriguing.

Trump’s Proposal: A Break from Conventional Diplomacy

Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed that he could “end the war in 24 hours” if given the chance. His suggestion of a three-way meeting is consistent with his self-image as a dealmaker capable of brokering agreements where others have failed.

In his latest remarks, Trump hinted that he would be open to sitting down with both Putin and Zelenskyy, suggesting that the U.S. could play a direct mediating role under his leadership. This would be a departure from the Biden administration’s current stance, which has focused on strengthening Ukraine militarily while isolating Russia diplomatically.

Critics argue that Trump’s statements are vague and lack a concrete roadmap. Supporters, however, believe his unconventional approach and personal relationships with both leaders could break the stalemate.

Could a Three-Way Meeting Work?

The success of any negotiation depends on the willingness of the parties involved. In this case, the challenges are enormous:

1. Trust Deficit

   • Zelenskyy has consistently maintained that he will not negotiate directly with Putin unless Russian troops withdraw.

   • Putin, meanwhile, views Ukraine’s alignment with the West as an existential threat to Russia’s security.

2. Political Timelines

   • Ukraine is racing against time, as prolonged war drains resources and public morale.

   • Russia, though sanctioned, is betting on its ability to outlast Western unity.

   • Trump’s own influence depends on his political future in the U.S., particularly the upcoming elections.

3. Global Stakeholders

   • NATO, the European Union, and China all have vested interests in the outcome. A U.S.-Russia-Ukraine-only framework might be seen as sidelining other critical players.

Potential Benefits of a Trump-Led Dialogue

Despite the challenges, there are reasons why Trump’s proposal should not be dismissed outright:

• Direct Engagement: Bringing leaders face to face, rather than through intermediaries, can sometimes produce breakthroughs.

• Political Leverage: Trump’s outsider status in current U.S. foreign policy may allow him to engage both sides without being tied to existing commitments.

• Global Attention: A high-profile meeting could shift momentum back toward diplomacy, at least temporarily easing the intensity of conflict.

Risks and Criticisms

The proposal also carries significant risks:

• Legitimizing Russia’s Invasion: Critics fear that involving Putin in negotiations without preconditions could validate Russia’s territorial claims.

• Undermining Ukraine’s Position: If Trump pressures Zelenskyy into concessions, Ukraine may be forced into an unfavorable settlement.

• Political Self-Interest: Some argue that Trump’s remarks are more about strengthening his campaign image than achieving genuine peace.

European leaders, in particular, remain wary. For them, any peace process that does not guarantee Ukraine’s sovereignty and security could destabilize the continent further.

Expert Opinions

Diplomatic analysts are divided.

• Optimists point to historical precedents, such as the Camp David Accords or the Cold War summits, where bold diplomatic gambles produced unexpected results.

• Skeptics argue that the structural realities—Russia’s military ambitions, Ukraine’s survival instincts, and Western commitments—make compromise nearly impossible at this stage.

As one European diplomat noted: “Peace cannot be imposed by outsiders. It has to be accepted by the people directly affected. Until Moscow and Kyiv find common ground, no mediator, not even a former U.S. president, can force a solution.”

Implications for Global Politics

If such a meeting were ever to take place, the consequences would ripple far beyond Ukraine.

• For the U.S.: It would mark a dramatic shift in America’s foreign policy posture, signaling a willingness to directly engage Moscow rather than isolate it.

• For Europe: It could test NATO unity, particularly if Trump’s approach clashes with the EU’s hardline stance against Russia.

• For Global Security: A negotiated settlement could stabilize energy markets, reduce nuclear escalation risks, and open doors for broader arms control discussions.

On the other hand, a failed meeting could embolden Putin, demoralize Ukraine, and weaken Western credibility.

Conclusion

Donald Trump’s suggestion of a three-way meeting with Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskyy adds yet another layer of drama to the already complex Ukraine conflict. While the idea may sound far-fetched, it reflects a deep global desire for peace and a recognition that military solutions alone may not end this war.

Whether Trump could actually deliver results remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that the world is at a crossroads: either find a diplomatic breakthrough, however imperfect, or continue down the path of prolonged bloodshed and instability. For millions of Ukrainians caught in the middle, the stakes could not be higher.