US President Donald Trump has said that after talks with Russian leader Vladimir Putin in Alaska, he wants to “almost immediately have a second meeting between Zelensky, Putin and me if they want me there.” He did not name an exact date for such a meeting.
Trump stressed, speaking to reporters on 13 August, that Russia’s refusal to quickly stop the war in Ukraine would have “extremely serious” consequences. What they would be, the US president also did not say.
“The goal is to end the war,” he said of what he hopes to achieve at a summit with Putin on 15 August.
According to the US president, the meeting with Putin is needed to understand “where we are” and “what we are doing”.
Trump also noted that if he does not get the “necessary answers” during the meeting with Putin, there will be no next meeting.
At the same time, the US president expressed doubt that he would be able to persuade Putin to stop attacks on Ukrainian civilians because “he’s already had that conversation with him,” but the Russian Federation strikes continued.
Donald Trump called the consultations with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and European leaders, which took place on 13 August, “very good”.
Earlier, Ukrainian head of state Volodymyr Zelensky said that Ukraine and Europe hoped that the central theme of the summit of US and Russian leaders in Alaska would be a ceasefire, following the collective talks with United States President Donald Trump.
“There should be a ceasefire – number one. There should be security guarantees, and really reliable ones. Today, by the way, President Trump said today that he supports this and that America is ready to participate,” Zelensky emphasised.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, speaking at a joint press conference with Zelensky, called the conversation with Trump constructive and positive.
And French President Emmanuel Macron, who also participated in the conversation with the US president, said that Trump clearly stated that “territorial issues concerning Ukraine… will be discussed only by the president of Ukraine.”
Meanwhile, a member of the committee on national security, defence and intelligence of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, Fyodor Venyslavskyy, said on the air of Radio Liberty that a meeting involving US President Donald Trump, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy could take place in the next two weeks.
According to him, Trump’s goal during his meeting with Putin in Alaska is to achieve a cessation of active hostilities and agree on a trilateral meeting with Zelensky.
“Personally, my expectation is that this meeting is the first step towards ending active hostilities. And this was stated by President Trump. He should give Putin strong arguments why it is worth ending the war and what will happen if he does not. I’m convinced that those arguments will be strong enough for Putin. And the second goal is to talk about the need for a meeting in the Trump-Zelensky-Putin format. I believe that it is also necessary to invite European partners to finally settle the issue of stopping hostilities,” Venislavskyy said.
The MP added that he expects such a chronology: on Friday – Putin’s meeting with Trump, and within the next 10 days or two weeks – Zelensky-Putin-Trump meeting, possibly with European partners.
“After it, we will already be able to understand the configuration of the upcoming halt of hostilities,” Venislavsky said.
Asked whether Zelensky has enough “trump cards” for a meeting with Putin, Venislavsky said the consolidated position of the Ukrainian president, the US president and European leaders is “strong enough to send clear signals to Russia.”
The summit between the US and Russian leaders is scheduled for 15 August in Anchorage, the largest city in the state of Alaska. It will be the first meeting between a Russian leader and a sitting US president since 2021.
On 11 August, Donald Trump suggested the possibility of “some exchange of territories” between Ukraine and Russia and expressed dissatisfaction with the Ukrainian leadership’s remarks about the need for constitutional agreement in this case