The Trump-Zelensky Call on Peace in Ukraine: Reading Between the Lines

by Claudio Bertolotti.

The statement released following the telephone conversation was coordinated and aligned, practically identical. From the shared acknowledgment of the significance of the negotiations held in Jeddah to the decision to accept an unconditional ceasefire—a move that effectively amounts to yielding to Russia. This scenario—of an exhausted Ukraine deprived of territories conquered by Moscow—is precisely what we have been anticipating for at least two years, though discussion of it has been avoided in favor of an idealistic, unrealistic narrative focused solely on Ukraine’s complete liberation. Unfortunately.

However, there is a subtle difference between Washington’s and Kyiv’s statements: Zelensky reiterated the need to strengthen air defense. Trump agreed with this necessity but highlighted that he would do his best to find a response to this requirement within Europe. By doing so, he effectively passed the responsibility to the Europeans—or at least reminded the EU of a role it verbally claims but that Washington has practically filled since the beginning. Perhaps not economically, but certainly regarding the supply of weapons and equipment. Moreover, while Zelensky did not mention it, Trump suggested the possibility of transferring ownership of Ukraine’s energy sector to U.S. companies. This is an interesting point, as it could serve as a deterrent to any future aggressive claims from Moscow.

In practical terms, Ukraine has absorbed the blow, yielding to U.S. demands, having no real alternative.

Therefore, the scenario emerging on the horizon is a diminished Ukraine—territorially reduced, depleted of natural resources, and deprived of any realistic possibility of NATO membership, though not necessarily excluded from the European Union. This outcome would be highly advantageous for Russia, which does not view the EU as an insurmountable obstacle.