International diplomacy is once again focused on the conflict in Ukraine, but from the United States comes a note of caution: a quick resolution should not be expected. This was stated by Monica Crowley, White House Chief of Protocol, in an interview with Fox News. According to Crowley, negotiations of this kind take time and cannot be compressed into the logic of immediate results.
Her statement came at the end of an intense week of meetings. On Friday in Alaska, President Donald Trump hosted Vladimir Putin for their first face-to-face since the escalation of February 2022. The White House called the talks “very productive,” and Crowley described them as a true “turning point” in the peace process.
A few days later, Trump received Vladimir Zelensky at the White House. He was accompanied by Emmanuel Macron, Olaf Scholz, Keir Starmer, Giorgia Meloni, and Alexander Stubb, as well as the heads of NATO and the European Commission. The summit was aimed at discussing possible compromise scenarios and, according to American sources, helped keep communication channels open with Kiev and its partners.
The difficult balance of negotiations
During his election campaign Trump had promised to end the war “in 24 hours.” Today he is forced to admit that the goal is more complex than he had imagined. “Peace is not an event, it is a process,” Crowley reiterated, recalling the example of Middle Eastern negotiations, which dragged on for years and were often interrupted.
Moscow’s position
The Kremlin has maintained its line. Dmitry Peskov reiterated that setting deadlines for an agreement is a pointless exercise. “There is no sense in trying to fit a viable solution into a short timeframe,” he said. Moscow insists on the need not only to build a truce, but also to lay the foundations for lasting peace: working on the status of disputed regions, guarantees of neutrality, the security of Russian-speaking populations, and ending Ukraine’s use as a geopolitical pawn of the West.
Trump’s role
Trump continues to present himself as the leader capable of ending the conflict. On Tuesday he said that the next step should be a direct meeting between Putin and Zelensky, without his presence. Later, he added, he would be able to join in a possible trilateral summit. “They had a very difficult, bad relationship,” he said of the two presidents. “If necessary—and it probably will be necessary—I will step in and I will be able to close the deal.”
Openings from Kiev
Zelensky, meeting with journalists in Washington, expressed his readiness for direct talks with Putin, while keeping firm on sovereignty and Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Putin, for his part, suggested that a face-to-face would be possible only at the final stage of negotiations, once the outlines of an agreement had already been defined.
Europe between support and divisions
Europe’s role remains crucial but complicated. France and Germany support the need to keep negotiations alive, but there are divergences over possible territorial concessions and security guarantees. Italy, through Giorgia Meloni, reaffirmed loyalty to the Atlantic line but stressed that any agreement must respect Ukraine’s will. The European Union, though represented at the highest levels, fears being sidelined if the negotiations turn into a direct channel between Washington, Moscow, and Kiev.
A glimmer of hope without shortcuts
Crowley’s words reflect the current situation: the atmosphere has changed and there is an opening that seemed impossible until recently, but there are no shortcuts. Trump has to admit that the conflict cannot be resolved with a lightning deal. Moscow rejects diktats, Kiev will not give up its core principles of sovereignty.
The future will depend on a series of progressive meetings and a path of compromises, verifications, and consolidations. For the first time in months, the prospect of a direct meeting between Putin and Zelensky appears tangible. Turning this opportunity into stable peace remains the most difficult challenge.
