Summit in preparation: Trump negotiates with Putin, but imposes Zelensky

A summit meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin is in preparation and could take place “as early as next week” ( Kremlin advisor Yuri Ushakov confirmed this, explaining that, at the US proposal, a bilateral meeting between the presidents of the United States and Russia has been agreed in principle, to be held soon. Both sides are now working on organizational details: the venue has already been chosen "in principle" and will be announced soon. Putin indicated that the United Arab Emirates is among the "completely suitable" locations to host the event, thanking his friend, Emirati President Mohammed bin Zayed, for his willingness. Therefore, Abu Dhabi, considered a neutral location and desirable to both sides, could play a mediating role.

Preparations are in full swing in Moscow: Trump's special envoy, Steve Witkoff, met Putin in the Kremlin in a long face-to-face meeting that lasted about three hours. This is Witkoff's fourth visit to Moscow (the fifth since the beginning of the year) and confirms the existence of an active diplomatic channel between Washington and the Kremlin despite the war in Ukraine. At Vnukovo airport, the US envoy was greeted courteously by Russian special representative Kirill Dmitriev, who even accompanied him on an informal walk in Zaryadye Park, a sign of an initially relaxed atmosphere. The official meeting with Putin took place in a climate of diplomatic urgency , close to the deadline set by Trump on August 9th for progress towards peace ( . In fact, a new package of American sanctions should have been triggered on Friday 9th – including secondary duties against Moscow's trading partners – if no signs of a turning point had emerged ( .

Signals from the meeting and official statements

According to statements made by Yury Ushakov at the end of the summit, the Putin-Witkoff meeting was "useful and constructive" , with an exchange of "mutual signals" on the conditions for ending the conflict ( The Kremlin has remained tight-lipped on the details, however: Putin delivered messages to Witkoff for Trump and vice versa , but Moscow will wait for the emissary to report to the White House before divulging specific contents ( ). “We are waiting for Witkoff to complete his debriefing,” Ushakov explained. “Only then will we be able to expand our comments.” . In essence, any concessions or proposals remain conditional on Washington's reaction. Sources close to Moscow have reportedly said that Putin reiterated the well-known Russian conditions for a lasting peace (withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from the occupied territories in 2022, recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea, and Ukraine's neutrality). – positions that have so far been unacceptable for Kiev and the West. On the other side, Bloomberg reports that the Kremlin is considering possible "tactical" concessions to the US, such as a ceasefire in the air strikes in Ukraine. This sort of "air truce", proposed a few days ago by Belarusian Lukashenko and taken up by analysts close to the Kremlin such as Sergei Markov, would imply a suspension of missile and drone strikes. : a gesture of goodwill that Putin could offer to Trump if Kiev also joined, perhaps in exchange for compensation (for example an easing of sanctions) ( .

On the official level, Donald Trump described Witkoff's meeting with Putin as "highly productive" on Truth Social, saying that "great progress has been made" ( . “Subsequently, I updated some of our European allies. Everyone agrees that this war must end, and we will work toward that in the days and weeks ahead,” added the US president ( . In parallel, White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt confirmed Trump's willingness to "meet with both President Putin and President Zelensky" in the near future , reiterating that Washington's priority objective is to end this brutal war ( From the Kremlin, Putin welcomed the American signals: "We have many friends ready to help us organize events of this kind," he said, referring to the Emirates and other potential facilitators. However, on the prospect of a three-way summit with Ukraine, the Russian leader dampened enthusiasm, noting that conditions are still "far from being created" for a meeting with Volodymyr Zelensky ( In the past, Moscow has always maintained that a possible Putin-Zelensky face-to-face meeting should only take place after the conclusion of already defined peace negotiations ( .

The "Zelensky Knot": Conditions and Cross-Reactions

Zelensky's possible participation in a future summit represents the most delicate point. Officially, Trump says he is also open to a meeting with the Ukrainian president, but White House sources cited by the US press have set a clear condition : the tycoon will agree to meet Putin only if the Kremlin leader agrees to see Zelensky ( In other words, Washington wants to avoid an outcome that excludes Kiev: any high-level agreement must also involve Ukraine. "Putin must meet with Zelensky for the meeting [with Trump] to take place," a US official revealed to the New York Post , noting that the White House considers a trilateral summit following the initial face-to-face meeting essential. This position – also confirmed by sources within Politico – appears aimed at reassuring allies: the former US president does not intend to "cut out" Zelensky from negotiations on Ukraine's fate.

For its part, Moscow is closing the door for now : Ushakov reported that during the meeting with Witkoff the hypothesis of a Russian-Ukrainian summit was only "mentioned" by the American side, without any discussion of the merits , and that the Russian delegation preferred not to comment on it at all ( The Russian priority, the advisor clarified, is to focus on preparing the bilateral meeting with Trump to ensure its success, leaving any trilateral scenario in the background for now ( This divergence of views on Zelensky's presence (or not) reflects the deep mistrust between the parties: Putin does not want to grant Zelensky international status unconditionally, while the Trump administration – also due to internal and European pressure – cannot afford to completely exclude Kiev from the process.

Meanwhile, Volodymyr Zelensky has publicly welcomed the idea of a summit : on X (Twitter) he declared that Ukraine “is not afraid of meetings” and expects “the same courageous approach from the Russian side” ( The Ukrainian president even revealed that in the preparatory talks they had discussed “two bilateral formats and one trilateral one” , stressing that Europe must be involved in the peace efforts ( . In fact, Zelensky, as soon as he learned of Witkoff's mission, started a round of consultations : he spoke on the phone with the German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, with the French President Emmanuel Macron and with the President of the EU Commission Ursula von der Leyen ( Zelensky reiterated to his European allies that “Europe must be among the participants” in any negotiations on the end of the conflict ( From Brussels, Von der Leyen reassured him: "We fully support Ukraine and will continue to play an active role in ensuring a just and lasting peace." This diplomatic mobilization highlights the widespread fear in Kyiv of being overtaken by an agreement decided above their heads . Many Ukrainians remember with apprehension the stormy meeting in the Oval Office last February, in which Trump harshly rebuked Zelensky, accusing him of not having done enough and pushing him to make concessions on strategic minerals ( The scene – an awkward Zelensky being scolded in front of the cameras – was seen at home as a humiliation and is now fueling fears that the Ukrainian president could be backed into a corner while the great powers decide Ukraine's future.

Reactions and analysis in alternative information

The prospect of a Trump-Putin face-to-face meeting has sparked mixed reactions in the independent media landscape . While mainstream media tend to filter the news through fears of an “appeasement” of Moscow, alternative outlets and anti-globalist voices are more open to dialogue – albeit with important critical distinctions. Tucker Carlson , a popular American conservative commentator known for his heterodox positions, has long called for direct negotiations with Putin to put an end to “this bloodbath.” Carlson has often denounced the Western narrative on the war and attacked Zelensky, even calling him “a dictator” for his repression of internal opposition and unwelcome media ( In a March interview, Carlson said he felt “definitely more sympathetic to Putin than to Zelensky,” explaining that “it’s fair to judge leaders by how they run their country.” According to Carlson, Putin’s Russia is “thriving” despite the conflict , while Zelensky’s Ukraine is suffering enormously – which he said demonstrates Putin’s greater effectiveness as a head of state.

In Italy, even figures from the free media are offering original interpretations of the possible summit. For example, after the famous verbal clash in February between Trump (accompanied by his vice president JD Vance) and Zelensky, independent photojournalist and analyst Giorgio Bianchi expressed "deep pity" for the Ukrainian president , calling him "a poor idiot thrown to the wild beasts" by the powers that be ( In his social media posts, Bianchi has slammed Trump and Vance as “arrogant with the weak, sick sadists” who first pushed the Ukrainians to massacre “and now humiliate them” publicly ( Above all, Bianchi issued a warning: Trump cannot "regain his virginity by blaming everything on the simple pawn" Zelensky, because "Trump is the expression and co-author of the Ukrainian disaster" and is now trying to "do business with Russia as if nothing had happened, using the imbecile European politicians" placed there by the United States. Harsh words, which frame Trump's attempt to present himself as a "peacemaker" not as a sincere repentance, but rather as a cynical geopolitical move in American interests. It's no coincidence that Bianchi recalls that "the United States does whatever the f **k they want, when they want, and with whomever they want"*, yesterday in the name of "exporting democracy" and today even more shamelessly, without even the moralistic fig leaf. It is a fierce criticism of “Trumpism” , seen as a new face (and even more brutal in tone) than the usual US hegemony in the emerging multipolar world.

Bianchi's statement—though he remains a vocal critic of Western warmongering—has sparked debate in the alternative camp, with some attacking him, accusing him of "betrayal" for showing empathy toward Zelensky. This episode highlights the divergent positions within dissident media : alongside enthusiastic supporters of Trump as an "enemy of globalism" ready to hail him as the architect of a possible peace, we find more cautious observers who urge against idealizing the former president. Vietato Parlare , notoriously critical of mainstream thought, maintains its usual sober and cautious stance on this issue: it recognizes the importance of opening negotiating channels to halt the escalation, but without indulging in facile enthusiasm. In line with this approach, many anti-mainstream voices hope that a Trump-Putin summit could at least initiate a process of de-escalation, shattering the dominant warmongering narrative . But at the same time , they warn : peace will not be the result of miracles or secret pacts between "strongmen," but rather of complex negotiations in which each actor—including the United States—will seek to maximize its own interests. In this context, it's worth remembering that Zelensky has always used summits to attack Russia and strengthen the warmongering front, sowing distrust among his opponents.

Beware of traps but exploit openings

The upcoming meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin is therefore an event fraught with expectations and controversy. On the one hand, there is the concrete hope that a direct dialogue at the highest levels could open a glimmer of hope towards ending a bloody conflict, breaking a long diplomatic stalemate ( On the other hand, substantial unknowns remain: the possible exclusion (temporary or otherwise) of Zelensky from the negotiations, the stability of Western unity around Ukraine, the risk that every handshake will turn out to be merely tactical. The Trump White House, pressed by the need for results in the short term, is playing a dual strategy of pressure and dialogue : on the one hand, it is threatening new heavy sanctions to force Moscow to make concessions (see , on the other hand, offers Putin the long-awaited limelight of a summit at his level ( The Kremlin, for its part, shows that it desires this summit – as Ushakov remarked, “the main thing is that this meeting is effective and productive” ( – but refuses to impose any restrictions on timing, location, and above all, Kiev's presence. In the middle are the European allies, determined not to remain passive spectators: the EU has made it clear that it wants to "play an active role" in any peace process ( .

Ultimately, the possible face-to-face meeting between Trump and Putin, if it actually happens in the next few days, will be much more than a photo opportunity: it will be a delicate diplomatic test with an uncertain outcome. No Talk will follow the event with its usual critical eye, far from both easy celebrations and ideological cheering. Beyond the mainstream simplifications – which oscillate between alarm over a “new Yalta” and the hope of finally being able to take credit for a ceasefire – the reality remains of a complex conflict, in which no single meeting will magically guarantee peace . Yet, coming together around a table is a necessary first step: “everyone agrees that this war must end, and we will work towards that,” Trump wrote announcing his envoy’s progress ( On this, at least, there is general consensus. It will now be up to politicians (official and otherwise) and independent journalism to ensure that the quest for peace does not become yet another battleground for propaganda, but remains focused on the ultimate goal: stopping the weapons and sparing further suffering for millions of people.