Another Call, Another Shift: How Trump and Putin Are Redrawing the Ukraine War’s Diplomatic Lines
The second call in a span of a few weeks between President Trump and President Putin is a confirmation of the trajectory of U.S. Russia negotiations on Ukraine, a discussion that predictably sidelined Europe but also, interestingly, Kyiv.
Building on the momentum of increased engagement between the American and Russian governments, this call is the latest in the series of high-level engagements sparked by the first call between Trump and Putin last month. That call was followed by high level meetings in Riyadh, diplomatic engagement in Istanbul, and consistent engagement by American and Russian envoys on Ukraine, focused primarily on the resumption of their bilateral relationship.
This second call, conducted without coordination with either Kyiv or Brussels, highlights the continuation of Trumps policy: Washington and Moscow are forging a new dynamic, one where Europe is increasingly sidelined, and Ukraine is left grasping for relevance in a conversation about its own fate. The signs of this shift have been building for months. Trump's first call with Putin had already rattled European leaders, fueling fears that the U.S. was moving toward a more pragmatic, if not outright conciliatory, relationship with Russia.
The sidelining of Europe from a conversation so important to its own security showcases the growing rift between the transatlantic allies, fed by an increasingly divergent outlook toward the international arena and the relevance of the multilateral framework that held the collective West together for decades.
By opening channels of communication with Moscow and Kyiv, albeit with a less friendly approach to the latter, Washington has is attempting to position itself as the exclusive mediator between the warring parties to extract the maximum advantage at the end of the war, not only in the immediate aftermath, but toward its strategic goal of containing its rising challenger, China.
Two Narratives: The White House vs. The Kremlin
The White House wasted no time framing the latest call between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin as a diplomatic breakthrough. According to Washington’s version of events, the discussion led to a clear step-by-step plan for de-escalation in Ukraine, beginning with an immediate ceasefire on energy infrastructure, to be followed by technical negotiations on a maritime ceasefire, then a broader cessation of hostilities, and finally, a path to permanent peace. The call, they emphasized, extended beyond Ukraine, touching on key security concerns in the Middle East, where Trump and Putin allegedly agreed that Iran should not be allowed to destroy Israel. The U.S. readout also underscored a shared interest in preventing the proliferation of strategic weapons, with both sides committing to discussions aimed at ensuring the broadest possible limitations on arms development. Central to the administration’s messaging was the idea that this call represented progress not just for Ukraine, but for global stability—an argument anchored in Trump’s continued push to normalize and improve U.S.-Russia relations.
Moscow’s version of the conversation, however, painted a slightly different picture. While the Kremlin confirmed that Putin was open to negotiations, the implication was that these talks would be shaped by Russian priorities. The Russian statement stressed the need for a lasting and comprehensive solution, one that eliminated what they described as the root causes of the war. Unlike the U.S., which framed the call as a clear roadmap toward peace, Russia hinted that the negotiations remained fragile, mostly, they suggested, because of Ukraine’s unwillingness to engage in meaningful discussions. The Kremlin also placed heavy emphasis on the role of Western involvement, conditioning any successful ceasefire on the cessation of ongoing military aid and intelligence-sharing between Ukraine and its allies.
Moscow added that Putin had agreed to Trump’s request for a 30-day pause on strikes against Ukraine’s energy grid. They also stressed that discussions on the Black Sea would begin, signaling Russia’s interest in reshaping maritime security in the region. Alongside these points, the Kremlin stated that as a gesture of good will, it would return a number of injured Ukrainians in addition to the pre-agreed upon prisoner exchange between Russia and Ukraine.
In not only agreeing (on the surface) with Trump’s proposal for a ceasefire, but also in performing a gesture of good will in response to Trump’s overture, the ball that was in Russia’s court, has now been lobbed right back to Kyiv. By not rejecting the proposed ceasefire, and instead posturing as accepting it, Moscow opted to complicate its terms through conditionalities that it knows will incur enough of a delay for it to consolidate advantages on the ground. It was also interesting that the Kremlin readout of the call stressed the bilateral nature of the engagement moving forward, in a clear exclusion of Europe from the discussions, limiting the framework of negotiations between Moscow, Washington and Kyiv.
Despite the differences in framing, both sides walked away from the call with tangible gains. For Trump, this was a diplomatic win, an optics triumph that bolstered his image at home as a dealmaker who could extract concessions from Putin where others had failed. The limited ceasefire, however temporary, gave him something to showcase as progress, reinforcing his argument that engagement—not confrontation as Europe prefers—was the key to managing Russia. For Putin, the gains were more subtle but no less strategic. By agreeing to a temporary pause in strikes, he bought time for Moscow to reinforce its position while appearing cooperative. The carefully layered conditions he introduced ensured that any real progress would take time, allowing Russia to dictate the pace of negotiations while publicly posturing as an engaged actor in the peace process.
Beyond the immediate players, the broader implications of the call extended to Europe, which once again found itself outside the decision-making process. The exclusion of European leaders from these discussions was neither accidental nor unprecedented, it was a continuation of a trend that had been building since Trump’s inauguration. Trump’s first call with Putin had already caused unease among U.S. allies, but this second engagement, which seeks to shape the war’s trajectory without European consultation, cemented the perception that Washington was pursuing its own strategic interests with disregard for transatlantic unity. The call reinforced the growing divide between the U.S. and its European partners, deepening the sense that Washington is prioritizing managing its relationship with Moscow rather than coordinating with Brussels.
The approach is consistent with the Trump administration’s grand strategy toward global geopolitics. It is focused on unburdening itself from the constraints of multilateralism including NATO, and pursuing its interests through the direct transactional approach. It also aligns with the main goal of addressing China as its chief global rival; by fostering the stronger engagement with Moscow, Washington reduces the interconnectedness between the two neighbors and reduces its own potential exposure to a united front of two nuclear peers.
In many ways, this conversation was less about peace than it was about control—over the narrative, over the process, and over the shifting alliances shaping the war’s outcome. The U.S. positioned itself as the key broker, Russia reinforced its leverage, and Europe was left to react. What remained to be seen was how Ukraine, caught in the middle, would respond to being increasingly sidelined in negotiations about its own fate.
Zelensky’s Frustration: Marginalized and Distrusted
President Zelensky’s frustration during his virtual press conference following the Trump-Putin call was impossible to miss. The fact that such a critical conversation took place without his knowledge or input reinforced an uncomfortable reality that Kyiv’s perspective has taken second place to Russian and American priorities on the manner in which the war would end.
Instead of being consulted beforehand, Zelensky was left scrambling to understand what had been agreed upon, piecing together information from the media (as he repeatedly stated during the press conference) after the fact. For him, the issue was not just about securing a reduction in Russian attacks but deep concern about being sidelined from negotiations shaping the future of Ukraine.
Despite having engaged with the U.S. in Jeddah and agreed to a ceasefire in principle last week, Zelensky found himself completely in the dark as the presidents of the U.S. and Russia engaged. Washington’s decision to not coordinate with Zelensky prior to the call was likely informed by the growing mistrust of his alignment with American strategic goals toward the outcome, a divergence that became very apparent during the disastrous Oval Office meeting with President Trump. The assessment in the White House may have been that any prior coordination or information given to Zelensky about the call would not only be shared with European leaders, but would likely be leveraged to undermine the discussions between Trump and Putin in an attempt to derail any agreements they would reach.
For Europe, the incentive to drive a wedge between Washington and Moscow is high; the sidelining of Europe throughout the engagement process threatens its interests in securing specific outcomes at the end of the war, and it also detracts from key plans to fund rearmament using the Russian threat as justification. For Kyiv, any conversation about ceasefire or ending the war that does not include its input threatens to put it an extremely disadvantageous position.
Zelensky remained deeply skeptical of what the outcomes of the call actually meant. While he welcomed any effort to reduce strikes, he stated that Russia had violated ceasefire agreements multiple times before, reiterating the point he made during his Oval Office row with Trump that diplomacy with Putin would not work.
His concerns extended beyond the immediate ceasefire. The Kremlin’s demand that Western military aid and intelligence-sharing with Ukraine be halted was, in his view, nothing more than a veiled attempt to strip Ukraine of its defenses. By making this a condition, Putin was not negotiating peace, he was setting the stage for a more favorable battlefield position. In Zelensky’s view, these were distractions meant to divert attention away from Russia’s intentions, and extend the time it had to consolidate its negotiating position later on.
Zelensky’s position that any true move toward a ceasefire would be contingent on unconditional agreement is intended to sow doubts between Washington and Moscow, but may end up backfiring against him by framing him as the one impeding discussions and progress. Had he opted instead to use the same techniques employed by Putin, namely nominally accepting the idea while positively engaging with Washington and reframing the discussion at that stage, he may have been able to better position himself to derail the process that excluded him and force one that includes Kyiv.
His concern, almost fear, arising from the outcomes of this call manifested quite emphatically when he said that he did not want to be on Putin’s menu, referring to the fact that he was not at the table as discussions proceeded. To address this, he repeatedly emphasized that Ukraine needed to be consulted and that, as the other party to the war, it needed to be present at any discussions pertaining to the future of the war and the eventual peace.
For Zelensky, the stakes were clear. This was not just about a temporary ceasefire or a potential prisoner exchange, it was about ensuring that Ukraine had a say in its own fate. He also warned that Russia was likely using this moment to secure as much territorial advantage as possible before dictating terms. Whether Kyiv can force its way back into the center of the process and effectively engage the U.S. as a partner is contingent on how it manages its relationship with the White House at this stage.
Europe: Bypassed, Divided, and Preparing for Disruption
If there was any lingering doubt that Europe had been relegated to the sidelines in shaping the future of the Ukraine war, the Trump-Putin call erased it. The exclusion of European leaders from the discussion was neither accidental nor unprecedented, it was the latest in a series of deliberate diplomatic moves by Washington that have systematically sidelined Europe from direct influence over the war’s trajectory.
The first major sign of this shift came after Trump’s initial call with Putin, which immediately set off alarms across European capitals. That conversation, which centered on potential de-escalation efforts and U.S.-Russia relations, was seen in Europe as a sign that Washington was willing to redefine its approach to Russia without consulting its traditional allies. The shock only deepened when, instead of course-correcting, the U.S. continued down this path by holding back-to-back meetings with both Russia and Ukraine in Saudi Arabia—without extending an invitation to any European representatives.
These meetings, first in Riyadh between the U.S. Secretary of State and Russian Foreign Minister, and then in Jeddah between the U.S. and Ukrainian officials, made it unmistakably clear that Washington viewed the conflict as something to be resolved through direct negotiations with Moscow and Kyiv without European involvement. The divergent perspectives between Brussels and Washington led the latter to mistrust the former’s intentions and asses that this misalignment in perspectives would result in an unconstructive European role.
Europe’s actions, whether they were a result of self fulfilling prophecy or founded on a continentally driven strategic outlook, confirmed Washington’s suspicions. During back-to-back meetings and summits in Paris, London, Kyiv, and Brussels, European leaders hardened their individual and collective positions toward Russia, committing to renewed and reinforced military and economic backing for Ukraine and framing Russia as an existential threat to Europe. Through these steps, they also strengthen Ukraine’s position, supporting it in the face of the shifting priorities in Washington, and providing it with some fallback to face increased pressure from the American administration and Moscow.
Skirting European Consensus: A Fractured Bloc
Beyond the exclusion from key negotiations, Europe is also grappling with internal divisions over its approach to Ukraine—a split that has increasingly led to the use of ad hoc coalitions of the willing rather than unified EU decisions that risk being vetoed by dissenting states.
On one side of the spectrum, the UK and France have advocated for a confrontational escalatory posture, floating the idea of sending troops to Ukraine under the guise of reinforcing any ceasefire or peace deal, a non-starter for Russia that has repeatedly made its position clear on the issue. The point however is not necessarily to actually send those contingents to Ukraine, but rather to introduce a sticking point in the negotiations that can help stall or even derail them until Europe has consolidated its own position and forced its way back onto the negotiation table.
The most exposed states to potential Russian threats, those on the eastern front of NATO, including Poland and the Baltics, have adopted a position driven by a deep mistrust of Moscow’s intentions, informed by a volatile and difficult history with Russia; there is no buffer between them and Russia, unlike the more central and western states that are insulated from direct threats.
On the other side, there are states that are skeptical of sending troops to Ukraine, or even of increasing military support packages during this year, chief among them Italy and Spain. Meanwhile, Hungary and other more dialogue-oriented states have continued to push for a negotiated resolution rather than escalatory approaches.
These disagreements have resulted in high-profile closed-door meetings like the London and Paris summits, which deliberately excluded certain EU members in order to push forward more hardline support for Ukraine without opposition from dissenting states. What should have been unified European strategy discussions have now turned tailored meetings where like-minded nations gather to discuss Ukraine policy while avoiding internal EU gridlock, skirting the processes designed to convey unified European positions.
Preparing for Disruption: Escalation as a Political and Economic Strategy
Excluded from the U.S.-Russia-Ukraine talks, Europe’s primary course of action will likely be to disrupt the process, possibly through ramped-up support for Kyiv, diplomatic pressure, and military posturing to harden Ukraine’s position and Moscow’s responses.
Recent statements from European officials already suggest that many are gearing up to portray Russia’s engagement with the U.S. as a deception, a stalling tactic designed to extract temporary concessions while preparing for renewed offensives. That is of course quite accurate, and well tested tactic deployed by Moscow for decades when it sought to prolong negotiations as it improved its positions. Framing Russia’s position in this manner seeks to support Kyiv’s own efforts to drive wedges between Washington and Moscow and hopefully realign the European and American stances somewhat toward the issue.
But beyond the rhetoric of supporting Ukraine, Europe’s motivations are driven by self-interest. For many European states, continued tensions with Russia are not just about defending Ukraine, but about strategic advantages at home. The war has provided an opportunity to rearm, expand military budgets, and deepen political influence under the pretext of countering Russian aggression. In some cases, access to Ukraine’s natural resources, particularly its vast natural gas reserves that promise to support Europe’s efforts toward energy independence, is also shaping policy decisions. In other words, maintaining the perception of Russia as an immediate and ongoing threat is a strategic imperative for incumbent governments in Europe to justify their rearmament and defense development plans in the context of achieving long term security independence from the U.S..
Despite the growing cracks in European unity, one thing remains clear: Europe will not simply sit back and watch Washington and Moscow dictate the future of Ukraine. Whether through direct military aid, diplomatic resistance, or economic strategies, the continent is already taking steps to ensure that whatever deal emerges does not undermine European influence, even if that means prolonging the war.
As the upcoming European summit approaches, leaders will likely restate their unwavering support for Ukraine, issue statements reinforcing the need for European involvement, and push back against any U.S.-Russia negotiations that exclude them. But whether this results in meaningful influence over the process or simply becomes another performative reaffirmation of Europe’s commitment (within the persistent continental echo chamber) remains to be seen.
Strategic Takeaways
The Trump-Putin call was not just another diplomatic engagement, it was a reflection of a changing power structure in the handling of the Ukraine war. The most significant takeaway from the call was that bilateral U.S.-Russia relations have now taken precedence over Washington’s traditional alliances with Ukraine and Europe. The Trump administration is laser focused on ensuring that Russia and China do not cement a united front against the U.S. and adopted a policy of rapprochement with Russia to avert that outcome rather than push Moscow toward Beijing by pressing forward with the previous administration’s isolation approach (that did not deliver the desired outcomes).
The fact that Zelensky was not informed beforehand about the agenda of the discussion regarding Ukraine reemphasized the hierarchy of priorities in Washington, as well as the White House’s continued irritation with the Ukrainian president. The lack of consultation was both a practical and political decision. Had the White House wanted Ukraine involved, it could have easily structured the call differently or kept an open channel of communication with Kyiv in its regard to ensure that Ukraine’s perspectives were included in the discussion.
This format is also indicative that the U.S. does not trust Zelensky to align with its broader diplomatic strategy, or, more pointedly, that Washington feared he would immediately alert European leaders before the U.S. had a chance to control the narrative and possibly derail the discussions.
From the Russian side, the call signaled that Moscow, too, is prioritizing its direct engagement with Washington over battlefield developments. The speed with which Putin agreed to a 30-day ceasefire on energy infrastructure, even if conditional and full of contingencies designed to stall it, was telling. It demonstrated that Russia sees containing negotiations in a bilateral format with the U.S. as its best pathway to achieving its long-term goals. Despite the war continuing, the Kremlin’s willingness to make even a partial concession suggested that Putin saw value in keeping the U.S. engaged as a key mediator, while keeping Europe locked out.
Timing also played a crucial role. Washington already securing a temporary Russian concession, even if only in appearance, European leaders now faced a dilemma: if they pushed for escalation, they risked appearing as the ones prolonging the war.
Trump’s call to Putin put Zelensky in the politically awkward position of looking like the disruptor. Russia’s acceptance of the American proposal for a partial temporary ceasefire made it easier to frame Zelensky as the unreasonable party (despite Ukraine’s acceptance of the American ceasefire proposal last week) within American media and diplomatic circles. The longer Kyiv resisted the process, the more the perception would grow that Ukraine was standing in the way of peace, while Russia and the U.S. were the ones making diplomatic strides.
Europe, meanwhile, was left seething. Not only was the continent shut out of the call, but it was also given a final product to react to rather than having any input in shaping it. The deepening rift between Washington and Brussels continues to widen, and the summit will likely see another round of European leaders restating their commitment to Ukraine while simultaneously struggling to keep internal divisions at bay. The growing reliance on "coalitions of the willing" to push forward policies without full EU consensus reflects an increasingly fragmented European position, one that Moscow and Washington could potentially exploit, either to force Europe’s hand or to dismiss it entirely from the process.
In the bigger picture, the Trump-Putin call reinforced the notion that this was never just about Ukraine. The war has become a strategic chess game in which global power dynamics are being reshaped. The U.S. is recalibrating its relationship with Russia to align with its new global outlook, Europe is fighting to remain relevant and reinvent itself while reasserting its independence, and Ukraine is struggling not to be sidelined in discussions that will determine its own future.