For what felt like endless months, Kyiv engaged in peace talks with Moscow, holding little genuine belief that they would ever succeed. Despite their reservations, Ukrainian diplomats diligently participated in numerous rounds of discussions with American and Russian officials. This was primarily to accommodate President Trump’s strong emphasis on finding a diplomatic resolution, even as these conversations consistently produced minimal, if any, breakthroughs.
However, as President Trump’s patience wears thin with Moscow’s unwavering stance—its refusal to compromise or even agree to a cease-fire—Kyiv now senses a critical opportunity. Ukraine is ready to advance its long-standing objective: shifting focus away from unproductive talks and towards acquiring more potent weaponry. The aim is to enhance its ability to strike targets within Russia, combined with demanding stricter sanctions, ultimately compelling Moscow to engage in serious negotiations to conclude the conflict.
This Tuesday, a senior Ukrainian delegation is set to embark on a multi-day visit to Washington. Their agenda includes discussions on potential deals to procure advanced American weapons, specifically those capable of deep strikes into Russian territory and fortifying Ukraine’s aerial defenses. President Volodymyr Zelensky himself is scheduled to follow up with a visit to the White House on Friday, where final agreements might be cemented. He has consistently advocated for American-made Tomahawk cruise missiles, which would significantly enhance Kyiv’s long-range strike capabilities.
On Sunday, while aboard Air Force One, Mr. Trump suggested a potential leverage point: using the threat of supplying these formidable missiles to Ukraine as a means to compel Russian President Vladimir V. Putin to cease hostilities. He reportedly stated, ‘I might say, ‘Look, if this war is not going to get settled, I’m going to send them Tomahawks.”
According to analysts, the Trump administration’s openness to discussing the provision and deployment of such advanced weaponry—a stance sharply contrasted by the Biden administration’s outright refusal—signifies a notable change in Washington’s strategy for resolving the ongoing conflict.
Sergiy Solodkyy, director of the Kyiv-based New Europe Center, observed, ‘For a significant period, diplomatic endeavors and peace negotiations dominated public conversation. Whenever Ukraine attempted to alter this narrative, it encountered a lack of understanding from its allies, particularly Washington. Now, it appears we are finally communicating on the same terms.’
However, many experts express skepticism about whether Tomahawk missiles would fundamentally alter the conflict’s trajectory. These missiles are typically launched from naval vessels or submarines, capabilities Ukraine currently lacks. Furthermore, the United States possesses only a limited inventory of ground-based launchers. Russian President Putin, for his part, has publicly stated his disbelief that Washington would supply these missiles to Ukraine, concurrently issuing strong warnings against such a potential escalation.
Nevertheless, Ukraine is banking on the idea that targeted strikes within Russia, focusing on critical economic infrastructure like oil facilities and military production sites, could significantly increase the war’s toll on Moscow. This strategy, they believe, would eventually compel Russia to seek a genuine settlement. Interestingly, Mr. Trump has endorsed this aggressive approach, encouraging Ukraine earlier this summer to ‘play offensive’ instead of solely focusing on territorial defense.
Over the weekend, President Trump and President Zelensky held consecutive phone conversations, which Zelensky characterized as ‘very productive’ in advancing discussions for further weapon acquisitions. When questioned on Monday about a potential meeting with Zelensky on Friday, Mr. Trump responded, ‘I think so, yeah.’
Beyond Tomahawks, President Zelensky indicated that the Ukrainian delegation in Washington would also be negotiating the procurement of sophisticated air defense systems and various other missile technologies. He had previously disclosed that Ukraine had compiled a wishlist of American weapons, totaling approximately $90 billion, which they intend to purchase using European financial backing.
Further discussions by the delegation are anticipated to include a deal for selling Ukrainian-manufactured drones to Washington, alongside initiating collaborative projects for drone production.
Kyiv’s strategic shift towards securing direct deals with Washington underscores its adaptation to President Trump’s results-oriented, transactional style of communication. In contrast to the Biden administration’s substantial aid packages, the Trump administration has prioritized profitable ventures through investments and weapon sales. Reflecting this, President Zelensky notably adopted a ‘Trumpian’ tone, labeling the proposed purchase of air defenses and missiles a ‘mega deal.’
The Ukrainian delegation in Washington is led by Prime Minister Yuliia Svyrydenko, a seasoned negotiator with prior experience working with the Trump administration. Notably, she successfully brokered a significant agreement this past spring, granting the United States favored access to Ukraine’s valuable mineral resources.
Observers suggest that Washington’s shift from conventional peace talks to Ukraine’s more assertive strategy is primarily a reaction to Moscow’s consistent rejection of negotiations and its intensified, lethal assaults. President Trump, who once openly lauded Mr. Putin, notably altered his rhetoric this summer, stating that the Russian leader ‘talks nice and then he bombs everybody in the evening.’
This evolving dynamic also highlights Ukraine’s deliberate strategy to demonstrate to Mr. Trump its role as the more rational and willing partner in any negotiation. As Mr. Trump pushed for peace in recent months, Kyiv meticulously adhered to his stipulated conditions. This included agreeing to a cease-fire, a measure they had initially opposed due to fears that Moscow would exploit the pause to regroup and resume attacks. Ukraine further consented to Mr. Trump’s suggestion for a trilateral summit involving himself, Mr. Zelensky, and Mr. Putin.
The overarching objective was to unequivocally show that Ukraine was prepared to explore all avenues to end the war, contrasting sharply with Russia’s reluctance. True to form, Moscow rejected both the implementation of a cease-fire and the invitation to participate in the trilateral meeting.
Oleksandr Kraeiv, who leads the North America Program at the Ukrainian Prism research institute, remarked, ‘Aligning with Ukraine offers President Trump the potential for significantly faster and superior outcomes compared to supporting a party unwilling or unprepared to negotiate.’
Furthermore, Kyiv aimed to counter Mr. Trump’s long-held belief that Russia, despite its slow advances, was destined to win the war due to its battlefield dominance, according to analysts. Moscow frequently leveraged this perception of inevitable victory to pressure Kyiv into accepting an immediate peace agreement, even if it involved surrendering territory. Initially, Mr. Trump had indeed shown support for Ukraine ceding land to achieve peace.
During an Oval Office meeting in August, President Zelensky effectively illustrated Russia’s sluggish progress by utilizing a detailed map of the Ukrainian battlefield, meticulously arranged by White House staff on an easel. This account comes from Sergiy Kyslytsya, Ukraine’s first deputy foreign minister, who was present at the meeting.
President Zelensky emphasized that a substantial portion of the Ukrainian territory currently held by Russia was, in fact, already under occupation prior to Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, following the illegal annexation of Crimea and the instigation of an insurgency in eastern Ukraine. He further noted that over the preceding 1,000 days, Russia’s territorial gains amounted to less than one percent of Ukraine’s landmass.
According to Mr. Kyslytsya, both Mr. Trump and his advisors paid close attention. Significantly, during that meeting, the American president did not reintroduce his previous proposals for Kyiv to surrender territory in exchange for a peace agreement.
It remains uncertain whether President Zelensky’s persuasive efforts truly altered Mr. Trump’s perspective on the war. Nevertheless, a notable shift occurred last month when Mr. Trump declared on social media that Ukraine, bolstered by European support, was now ‘in a position to fight and WIN all of Ukraine back in its original form.’
Despite Ukrainian officials’ long-standing recognition that retaking all lost territory through military might alone is challenging, Mr. Trump’s statement significantly energized their drive to acquire more weapons. Kyiv firmly believes that, regardless of discussions about Western security guarantees, only a massive military reinforcement can genuinely force Russia to halt its aggression and prevent future invasions.
A day after Mr. Trump’s unexpected change in rhetoric, President Zelensky addressed the United Nations General Assembly, starkly stating, ‘There are no security guarantees except friends and weapons. If a nation truly desires peace, it must still invest in weaponry. It’s a grim truth, but that’s our reality. It’s not international law or cooperation; it’s weapons that ultimately determine who survives.’