Volodymyr Zelensky met with Donald Trump on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session in New York. Currently, this meeting does not appear to lead to concrete results in the search for possibilities to end the war. However, its very fact is important because it demonstrates that the US president cannot simply ignore this war and that the search for ways to end it and cooperation with Ukraine remains an important part of the American political agenda—at least until the mid-term elections critical for Donald Trump.
Perhaps because Trump realizes that the majority of American society supports Ukraine, he demonstrates this allegiance, but demonstrating allegiance and hoping for concreteness are not the same. Discussions about licenses for air defense missiles continue, and in case of agreement, it will take years before missiles begin production in Ukraine. Agreement on using Starlink on Russian sovereign territory to destroy Russian ballistic missiles could not be reached either. Trump advises Zelensky to talk to Musk, and Musk to talk to Trump. This game can continue until the war ends.
However, discussing ways to end the war with the Ukrainian president is necessary. I remind you that after the visit to Moscow and Kyiv by American intermediaries Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, Donald Trump planned to speak with both Putin and Zelensky. Then, only the conversation with the Russian president took place, which Trump described as “good,” but provided no specifics—possibly because there were none. Witkoff and Kushner might have discussed economic projects in Moscow for hours but failed to achieve the main thing from Putin—agreement to end the war.
Ignoring Zelensky in this situation turned out not to be the best option. Moreover, Trump continually says that the consequence of Ukrainian strikes on Russian refineries is an increase in diesel prices—even at American gas stations. This, of course, is an election exaggeration. Without reopening Hormuz, fuel prices are unlikely to change significantly—even if Ukraine stops hitting Russian refineries. But it is at least important for the American president to show that he is making efforts to solve the problem. He sends intermediaries to Kyiv and Moscow, signs the “Graham Act,” meets with Zelensky, and warns Putin about the consequences for his oil industry, which, from Trump’s perspective, Putin no longer controls.
In business, Trump always tries to follow logic. If Putin needs to save his oil industry, he should agree at least to an energy truce. That is why Trump has started publicly reminding the Russian president that he has lost control of his oil industry.
But Putin has a different logic, more akin to Trump’s Iranian “partners.” Putin measures the situation not by economic interest but by endurance limits. For the Russian president, it is important not how much Russia loses but how much pressure it endures. He exhausts Ukraine for the same reasons—to reach such destruction that undermines the opponent’s endurance. And he “nightmares” Europe for the same reasons—to prevent Europeans from providing Ukraine with the ability to resist Russian aggression.
This is not business logic. This is the logic of fanaticism. But in searching for ways to end the Russian-Ukrainian war, this logic needs to be considered by both Zelensky and Trump. Putin will not start real negotiations as long as he has the means to exhaust Ukraine. And as long as Russia has resources for war and endurance. This simple formula suggests further strikes on Russia and increased support for Ukraine. It means that Russia’s oil industry must be crippled, and missiles for Ukraine’s air defense must be found.
And yes, it requires acknowledging that what continues is a war of attrition, not a successful negotiation process. But such acknowledgment brings us closer to real, not feigned, peace negotiations.
