A cordial July 8 meeting between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on the margins of NATO’s Ankara summit has fed a Western narrative that momentum is shifting toward Kyiv — even as Vladimir Putin quietly expands his territorial demands and intensifies aerial bombardment of Ukrainian cities. The gap between diplomatic atmospherics and battlefield reality has rarely looked wider than it does this month, according to the Council on Foreign Relations’ latest assessment of the negotiating track (CFR).
From Anchorage to Ankara: A Year of Failed Momentum
The current diplomatic phase traces back to a 28-point peace framework drafted after a US-Russia summit, which Ukraine and its European allies criticised as tilted toward Moscow’s maximalist demands, including territorial concessions. Three rounds of talks in the UAE and Switzerland in January and February 2026 produced no breakthrough, and by December 2025 Zelenskyy had claimed roughly 90% of a deal was in place — a figure that has not translated into a signed agreement in the months since (House of Commons Library).
Trilateral talks mediated by Washington were postponed entirely after the outbreak of the US-Iran war earlier this year, and Financial Times reporting cited by Ukrainska Pravda suggests Russian negotiators privately told their American counterparts that any resumption depends on Kyiv accepting significant concessions first — with meaningful talks unlikely to resume before the end of summer (Ukrainska Pravda). On June 4, Zelenskyy published an open letter proposing a direct meeting with Putin; the Kremlin’s response, delivered through Putin himself, was that he saw no point in such a meeting.
Putin’s Expanding Demands
Rather than softening his position, Putin has broadened it. The CFR’s Thomas Graham notes that the Russian president is now invoking “Novorossiya” — a historical designation stretching from Kharkiv province through to Moldova’s Transnistria enclave — as territory he wants “liberated,” a significant escalation beyond earlier demands centred on the Donbas (CFR). Ukrainian intelligence reviewed by the Financial Times indicates Putin has ordered his forces to capture the remainder of Donetsk Oblast by year’s end, even as Russia’s ground offensive has visibly slowed (Ukrainska Pravda).
Peace Research Institute Oslo analyst Pavel Baev argues that Putin’s posture reflects both genuine confidence and denial about Russia’s deteriorating economic position — investment activity reportedly dropped over 14% in the first quarter of 2026, even as the Kremlin insists the economy is performing well (PRIO). Baev’s assessment is blunt: the war has become unwinnable and unsustainable for Moscow, yet Putin shows no sign of internalising that reality from his own ministers.
Europe’s Rising Diplomatic Weight
What has changed since earlier this year is Europe’s own confidence in shaping the endgame. A London meeting between Zelenskyy and the “troika” of France, Germany and the UK produced five clear negotiating principles that PRIO describes as tilted more firmly in Ukraine’s favour than the original US-Russia framework — a shift Moscow rejected immediately, but one that signals European capitals are no longer content to be bystanders while Washington and Moscow negotiate over their heads.
At the Ankara summit itself, that European assertiveness translated into hard commitments: a collective pledge of €70 billion in military assistance for Ukraine in 2026, with individual packages from Canada, Denmark, Norway and Lithuania stacking on top, plus Trump’s announcement that the US would license Ukraine to manufacture its own Patriot missile interceptors domestically (Forbes).
The Contours of a Possible Settlement
Despite the impasse, CFR’s analysis suggests the outline of an eventual deal is already visible: a ceasefire along the existing line of contact rather than any Russian retreat from occupied territory, closer Ukraine-West security ties that stop short of full NATO membership, and a mutual understanding that NATO will not expand further eastward. Such an arrangement would let both sides claim a version of victory — Kyiv preserving its sovereignty and European trajectory, Moscow claiming it blocked NATO’s expansion — but would remain fragile without a broader, more durable security architecture for the region.
For now, the practical reality is that diplomacy and destruction are proceeding on separate tracks. Ukrainian air defences are showing widening gaps that Trump’s Patriot decision will not close for months or years, while Putin, per Ukrainian assessments, is betting that continued pressure on Ukrainian cities will extract better terms than the negotiating table currently offers.
