Trump Presses Zelenskyy to Strike Deal With Russia as He Courts Putin Over American Captive

Trump Zelenskyy deal pressure intensified on Tuesday when the US president publicly demanded that Ukraine’s leader reach an agreement with Moscow, arguing that the Ukrainian public would soon lose patience with a war now in its fifth year.

Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office, Trump framed a settlement as something Zelenskyy could and should have accepted long ago. The remarks landed at a moment when ties between Washington and Kyiv are already under severe strain.

“He Could Have Made a Deal Two Years Ago”

Trump’s message was blunt. He said the administration wanted Zelenskyy to make a deal, insisted the Ukrainian president was capable of doing so, and claimed an agreement had been within reach during their meeting in that same room two years earlier.

He went on to suggest that Zelenskyy would be forced to the table regardless, predicting that Ukrainians themselves would no longer tolerate the status quo.

The reference to a “little chat” in the Oval Office was a pointed one. In February 2025, shortly after Trump’s return to the White House, he and Vice President JD Vance engaged in a heated, televised confrontation with Zelenskyy that stunned observers and set the tone for a difficult relationship ever since.

A Direct Appeal to Putin

In the same session, Trump revealed that he had personally asked Russian President Vladimir Putin to free Stephen Hubbard, an American who was captured by Russian forces in Ukraine several years ago.

Trump described extensive conversations with Putin on the matter and hinted strongly that a release could be imminent. Responding to a question from AFP, he urged reporters to remember the exchange in a few days’ time, adding that he accomplishes things no one else can.

The appeal, and the warmth with which Trump described his dealings with the Russian leader, were widely interpreted as further evidence of a tilt back toward Moscow at a time when his tone toward Kyiv has grown increasingly harsh.

Why Relations Have Soured

Several developments in recent weeks have pushed the US-Ukraine relationship to one of its lowest points.

The diesel deal. Trump partially rolled back sanctions on Russia in order to arrange imports of Russian diesel fuel, a move intended to ease domestic energy prices but one Ukraine views as a lifeline for the Kremlin’s war effort.
The “warmonger” label. Trump criticised Zelenskyy in sharp terms over Ukrainian strikes on Russian oil refineries, effectively casting the victim of the invasion as the aggressor.
Shifting blame. Ukrainian officials have been alarmed by Trump’s renewed habit of holding Kyiv responsible for the failure to end a war that began with Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022.
Praise for Putin. The president’s complimentary language toward the Russian leader contrasts starkly with his treatment of Zelenskyy.

Taken together, these moves have left Ukraine questioning whether it can count on Washington as the war grinds on.

Oslo Talks Aim to Lower the Temperature

Even as Trump spoke in Washington, efforts to repair the relationship were underway in Norway. Zelenskyy met Steve Witkoff, Trump’s envoy, in Oslo on Tuesday for discussions intended to calm the recent turbulence.

There was at least one positive outcome. Zelenskyy welcomed the resumption of US intelligence sharing about impending Russian strikes, a capability Ukraine relies on to protect its cities and infrastructure. Its earlier interruption had drawn sharp criticism in Kyiv.

But the Ukrainian leader also drew a clear line. After his meetings with American envoys, he insisted that Ukraine must have a seat at the table in any future negotiations concerning its own future. The demand reflects a deep-seated fear in Kyiv that Washington and Moscow could reach an understanding over Ukraine’s head.

The Pressure Campaign in Context

Trump’s push for a deal rests on a consistent argument: that the war is prolonging global instability, driving up energy costs and could be ended if Zelenskyy showed more flexibility. His supporters contend that Ukraine cannot win a war of attrition against a larger adversary and that a negotiated settlement, however painful, is preferable to continued bloodshed.

Critics see the matter differently. They argue that Putin, not Zelenskyy, has been the primary obstacle to peace, repeatedly rejecting ceasefire proposals and continuing to bombard Ukrainian cities. From this perspective, pressuring Kyiv while rewarding Moscow with sanctions relief and diesel purchases weakens Ukraine’s negotiating position and encourages Russia to hold out for better terms.

What Happens Next

Two developments will be closely watched in the coming days. The first is whether Trump’s confident prediction about Stephen Hubbard materialises into an actual release, which would hand the president a tangible result from his engagement with Putin.

The second is whether the Oslo channel produces a durable improvement in US-Ukraine relations or merely a temporary pause in hostilities between the two governments. The restoration of intelligence sharing is a meaningful step, but Zelenskyy’s insistence on inclusion in any talks suggests Kyiv remains wary of what Washington might agree to on its behalf.

For now, Ukraine finds itself in an uncomfortable position: dependent on an ally whose president is openly sympathetic to its enemy, and under mounting pressure to accept a deal whose terms it has not yet seen.