Donald Trump has “become a politician”, shifting from instinctive deal-maker to calculating candidate as he pushes for a Ukraine peace settlement, a former US admiral said after the Washington summit with Volodymyr Zelensky. Admiral Mike Hewitt, co-chair of the Ukraine Reconstruction Summit, said the US president now understood that “a ceasefire isn’t a deal” and was framing his stance with one eye on the midterms.
“He can’t explain to the American people why Ukraine matters, so he focuses on peace. But he now realises a ceasefire isn’t a deal – he may actually be able to get to one.” He pointed to Trump’s recent declaration that Ukraine would “never get Crimea back” as an example of politics shaping diplomacy.
“I wish he hadn’t made the Crimea position clear before negotiations, but, politically, he’s feeding his base by saying it was Obama that gave up Crimea, and that ship has now sailed,” Hewitt said. “And returning Crimea is a red line for Putin – it is simply too important for Russia.”
There was reason for optimism, however, with the leap from Trump’s first meeting with Vladimir Putin in Alaska to the Zelensky talks in Washington showing real momentum.
“The goal of the first meeting was to get to a second,” he said. “And the second happened faster than I thought possible.”
Former UN Undersecretary General Rose Gottemoeller described Trump’s willingness to offer Ukraine a US security guarantee as “a huge breakthrough,” noting that even Moscow had begun to accept that Ukraine would require it.
“Trump saying explicitly that the United States will participate is an enormous step forward,” she said. “It is also an enormous reassurance to NATO allies, who feared the US would turn tail and leave Europe.”
Gottemoeller stressed that such guarantees must have deterrent effect and that without US participation “they won’t work”.
She compared the process to Washington’s role in building up South Korea after 1945: “This is a real partnership going forward.”
Hewitt echoed that optimism, arguing that the presence of European leaders in Washington—among them, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and French President Emmanuel Macron—was less about shielding Zelensky than binding Trump in.
“It’s a demonstration of Western unity,” he said. “Putin cannot split the West.”
Central to the summit was Trump’s suggestion of an “Article 5-style” guarantee for Ukraine – a commitment to a collective defence modelled on NATO’s founding clause.
Hewitt said it would put allies “on full report” to defend Ukraine’s sovereignty: “We know Putin will violate the deal if he sees an opening.”
Others remained cautious. “This was a Donald Trump relishing being on TV,” said Ravi Argarwal, editor of Foreign Policy. “Progress has been made in that there are talks. But it has to lead somewhere. If it doesn’t actually lead to a proper outcome for Ukraine, then I would call these talks a show.”
Anatol Lieven, director of the Eurasia programme at the Quincy Institute, dismissed European leaders’ demands for a prior ceasefire as “either deceitful or stupidly self-deceitful”. Russia, he said, would never agree to a truce while its army was still advancing, and Kyiv had once rejected the same idea when it held the upper hand.
“What is meant by an ‘Article 5-like’ NATO security guarantee is wholly unclear at this stage,” Lieven added. “If it is a commitment to go to war for Ukraine, Trump won’t give that. If it is a US-backed European reassurance force in Ukraine, Putin won’t accept that. It could be a clever formula for saving Western face while really promising only further supplies and training.”
And even if yesterday’s outcomes marked progress, they cannot deliver quick results. “Peace is not built overnight. The United States must stay fundamentally involved,” said former US ambassador to NATO Nicholas Burns. “This is going to take months of negotiation, not one or two meetings.”
Burns cautioned that Ukraine would need firm guarantees before signing anything. “You cannot trust the word of President Putin,” he said. He suggested a “security force” inside Ukraine, made up of NATO countries but with vital US intelligence and air support. “It wouldn’t require troops on the ground,” he added, “but that kind of US backing will be critical.”
For Hewitt, however, the day ended on a more confident note. He said NATO should draw encouragement from Trump’s willingness to keep Ukraine’s sovereignty on the table. “If I’m NATO and I now realise the president of the United States is willing to put troops on the ground if that’s what it takes, it should give me great confidence. I don’t think he says that for theatre.”