The Current - Will Trump’s peace push force Ukraine to give up territory?

Episode Date: August 19, 2025

U.S. President Donald Trump says peace in Ukraine is “very attainable” after hosting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and European leaders at the White House just days after meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska. Trump has floated security guarantees for Ukraine, but also suggested Kyiv may need to give up territory. Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze, a Ukrainian MP, tells us why many in her country fear being forced into concessions. Plus, Brookings Institution foreign policy expert Michael O’Hanlon and Atlantic Council’s Peter Dickinson on what Trump, Putin and Zelensky each stand to gain, and what a deal could mean for Ukraine’s future.

We are gathered here today to celebrate life's big milestones. Do you promise to stand together through home purchases, auto-upgrades, and surprise dents and dings? We do. To embrace life's big moments for any adorable co-drivers down the road. We do. Then with the caring support of Desjardin insurance, I pronounce you covered for home, auto, and flexible life insurance. For life's big milestones, get insurance that's really big on care at Dejardin.com slash care. This is a CBC podcast.

Hello, I'm Matt Galloway, and this is the current podcast. President Zelensky, you look fabulous in that suit. I said the same thing. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy suited up yesterday, sort of, as he met with Donald Trump at the White House to talk about brokering a possible peace deal. He wore a black suit jacket, but no tie. It was a very different meeting. from their last one in February,

where you might remember President Zelensky was criticized for not wearing a suit. Donald Trump said a peace agreement for the war in Ukraine is attainable, and President Zelensky said he is ready for a trilateral meeting with Russia and the U.S. We just conformed after this productive meeting with the president and then with all our colleagues with the partners, we conformed that we are ready for a trilateral meeting.

And if Russia proposed to president of the United States, United States, bilateral and then, we will see that the result of bilateral and then. It can be the trilateral. So I said always so Ukraine will never stop on the way to peace and we are ready for any kind of formats, but on the level of leaders. The leaders of Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Finland, the European Union and NATO also met with Donald Trump in a display of support for Ukraine. The meeting took place just days after Donald Trump met Russian president Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday. Hours after that meeting, Russia launched an overnight strike on the city of Kermenchuk. Ivana Klimbush Zanzadzi joins us now.

She is a Ukrainian MP and the chair of the Parliamentary Committee on the Integration of Ukraine to the European Union. We reached her in Kiev. Hello, hello. Thank you for having me. Of course, thank you for joining us. When we spoke to you last week before Donald Trump met with Russian President Vladimir Putin. And we'll talk more about that meeting in a moment. But first, how are you feeling about the meeting yesterday? And now we hear there is this attack by Russia. Well, I think it was very important that European leaders together with the Ukrainian president

have coordinated their positions and have been speaking in a united voice with the American president in the common understanding how to proceed. And I think it was important that. supposedly security guarantees for Ukraine have been at least discussed or the outline of those. However, I also see that very important and very sensitive issues have been left out from that discussion yesterday. And with regard to Russian attack, that is something that Russia will be doing when it pretends that it is ready to agree to negotiate without a ceasefire. It has always been the tactics of the Russian Federation. Whenever any negotiations have been occurring or planned,

they have always, over this period since 2014, increased their military pressure on the front line. And now they are also going to increase, as they did already this night, the terror across the civilian cities across the whole country. What do you believe was left out of those meetings yesterday? Well, definitely, you know, the very fact that President Zelensky has said that he is going to discuss any territorial issues with the president of the Russian Federation. I also think all the conditionalities and demands that Russia has been trying to push on Ukraine have been also left out. And I don't know with any issue with regard to what comes if Russia is not agreeing, if Russia is not behaving, if Russia is not behaving.

Well, it's difficult to say that Russia could behave with dignity, but at least would not be honoring anything that it's promised what comes next in terms of pressure on the Russian Federation. That's actually the only language that Russia understands. What did you make of the fact, then, that the president of the United States said maybe there is some kind of peace deal without a ceasefire? I look at it rather skeptical whether the peace agreement, peace settlement could be reached without actually going through a ceasefire

when then the sides could actually sit down and really talk practicalities if that could be the case with the Russian Federation because otherwise that will be every single day whenever anything is expected to happen in terms of negotiations that will be accompanied by Russian severe attacks on Ukrainian soil

and on Ukrainian front. You said the thing that was missing from the meeting was talking about any land swap or giving up land. And we heard Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social that Ukraine needs to give up Crimea, which Russia illegally annexed in 2014. We're also hearing about the Dombas region. Vladimir Putin says he would not give up that region.

When asked about it, President Zelenskyy said, didn't say much. He didn't respond directly to questions about the Dombas region. What are your expectations? or Ukrainian's expectations about that? Ukrainian society is not ready to discuss and agree to any seizing by Russian Federation legally our territories and the fact that Ukraine, the Jure, Ukraine giving up on Ukrainian territories which are internationally recognized.

I do not see it happening with the international recognition of such territory. And again, I would like to again and again underline, this is not exclusively about territories. This is about the people on the ground there. This is about Russian gulags that they are introducing there. People being taken to prison, people are being tortured, are being denied their Ukrainian identity, children being forcefully deported and turned into Russian ethnicity. I think we are kind of forgetting what kind of horrors are happening on the occupied territories, when we are discussing any of the land swamps.

We know, of course, Ukraine has been trying to get into NATO. Donald Trump says that's a no-go. However, we are hearing about some kind of security guarantee for Ukraine if there was any kind of future Russian invasion. You called it a supposed security guarantee. What are your concerns around that? Well, Ukraine has a very sensitive history of giving up nuclear weapons and then receiving in exchange a sheet of paper

that had to represent security guarantees, including from the Russian Federation, that nobody will attack Ukraine and they would also guarantee our territorial integrity. That was not adhered to. That's one thing. We also had a big document on friendship and strategic partnership with the Russian Federation, which was signed, ratified by the Russian Federation, and that was totally disregarded. So I don't really think that anything but not like Article 5, but Article 5 guarantees could be actually a serious deterrent for the Russian Federation.

And all their nuances that they are trying to tell that they are afraid or worried about NATO expanding to the east are nonsense because they just swallowed the joining of Finland and Sweden into NATO and extending, immensely extending the border of NATO with Russia. Do you believe that a peace deal is possible at this point, knowing that Russian President Vladimir Putin is who you're dealing with here? I am very cautious and very skeptical that you can actually agree on something with the Russian Mr. Putin and expect him to follow through and honor his commitment. We have had even, you know, even the ceasefires that we had over this 11 and a half years, like about 20 of them, have all been violated by the Russian Federation. So it's hard to believe that Russia, if not being pressured into peace, would just willingly go for some compromises. Russia is only seeing the end of this war on their own terms, and that is capitulation and non-existence of Ukraine. Ivana Klimpush Zanzadzi, thank you for joining us again this morning. Thank you, Rebecca.

Ivana Klimpush Zanzadzi is a Ukrainian MP and the chair of the Parliamentary Committee on the integration of Ukraine to the European Union. Union, we reached her in Kyiv. We are gathered here today to celebrate life's big milestones. Do you promise to stand together through home purchases, auto upgrades, and surprise dense and dings? We do. To embrace life's big moments for any adorable co-drivers down the road. We do.

Then with the caring support of Desjardin insurance, I pronounce you covered for home, auto, and flexible life insurance. For life's big milestones, get insurance that's really big on care at Dejardin.com On the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz comes an unprecedented exhibition about one of history's darkest moments. Auschwitz, not long ago, not far away, features more than 500 original objects, first-hand accounts, and survivor testimonies that tell the powerful story of the Auschwitz concentration camp, its history and legacy, and the underlying conditions that allowed the Holocaust to happen. On now exclusively at ROM. Tickets at ROM.C.A. So for more on yesterday's summit, I'm joined by two guests. Michael O'Hanlon is a foreign policy and defense expert at the Brookings Institution.

And Peter Dickinson is the Ukraine editor at the Atlantic Council. Good morning to you both. Good morning. Michael, I'll start with you. How much closer do you think we are to a permanent peace deal after yesterday's meeting? I don't know if we're measurably close. but I'm still somewhat relieved that the main pieces of, I think, a correct U.S. strategy are coming into better focus and that President Trump was not so bamboozled by Vladimir Putin last

week in Alaska that somehow he's adopted most of the Russian talking points. There is this, you know, obviously this ongoing debate about ceasefire versus peace plan and we'd all prefer to see the shooting stop immediately, but I'm not overly worried about that distinction myself. We can get into that later, if you like. But the most important point is that the reception for Zelensky was full-throated support, and I think that there's no particular harm in Trump trying this charm offensive towards both at the same time. It won't look very good in retrospect if Putin's stonewalls and obfuscates, but you know, you have to be a little bit flexible on tactics when you've had a three-and-a-half-year war that nothing else has stopped. So I'm staying hopeful that at least the

strategy is coalescing. I don't know how soon it can deliver results. Peter, what do you think? Are you still hopeful? What are the takeaways for you from yesterday's summit? Well, I think it tells you a lot about where we are, that, you know, my overriding impression was that could have been a lot worse. I mean, I think there were some positive takeaways. I mean, I think the agreement we saw, the sort of, the message of unity from the Western world was very, very welcome. I think that was needed, especially after what we saw in Alaska. That was extremely important. And also the apparent unity in a broad sense about the idea of the need to provide Ukraine with security guarantees and America's readiness to participate in that, although, of course,

we don't know exactly what that means or what that could entail. So there are steps in the right direction. I think we're still a long way from actual peace. I don't think we're, you know, I think it's very premature to start talking about, you know, getting you, you know, sort of meeting within weeks for bilateral and trilaterals and meetings with Putin. I would imagine that what you'll find now in the coming days is going to be a strong pushback from the Russians to sort of pour damp water on all this. I think the first thing we'll see is that Putin will not agree to meet the Zelensky. He'll rule that out as far as I'm where they're already making those sort of noises in Moscow. And then, you know, the the ideal outcome will be that the American. Americans and Trump himself will realize that he has to get tough with Putin. I just think

it's unrealistic at this stage to imagine that Putin is going to stop the war unless he feels a lot more pressure, considerably more pressure, because at the moment, he's quite comfortable with the way things are going and he can continue for a long time. And at this stage, we're not seeing enough pressure applied. But again, Western unity is very, very welcome a step in the right direction. Michael, it sounds like Peter has a slightly different take. You're suggesting that it is interesting to see a different take after three and a half years. He may have tried the charm offensive. Do you think, like Peter, that these trilateral meetings are not likely to happen? Yeah, it's a good point. I think that Peter's probably right, that certainly

he's correct that Putin wants to keep fighting and thinks time is on his side and will continue to fight until proven otherwise. And that's why we have to be ready to be applying much greater pressure immediately. And, you know, go ahead and give Putin a week or two of grace to see if he'll show up for a trilat and show any flexibility whatsoever on some of these difficult issues. But if he doesn't, as we're all predicting he won't, be ready at that point to apply the pressure much more intensively. And I think that should involve sanctioning more of the various oil tankers that are carrying around Russian oil and evading the price cap arrangement. That should involve Europeans beginning to seize, let's say, $10 billion a month in those frozen Russian assets and

giving them directly to Ukraine, as long as Russia obfuscates and delays any kind of a peace process. And I think it should involve another, at least modest, U.S. aid package that the Congress should be asked to approve by President Trump. Those are the kinds of things that are going to show resoluteness that are going to increase the pain and pressure on Russia. And I agree with Peter, without that kind of change, it's very unlikely to see Putin settle for what he's got now because he thinks he's winning. Michael did say, though, Peter, that, you know, a week or two of grace for Russia, perhaps, but we did see another overnight drone and missile attack on Kremlinchuk overnight. What did you make of these attacks, particularly in the aftermath of what

was a hopeful meeting? Well, Russia's not going to stop his attacks. I mean, I think that's clear. I mean, we shouldn't expect them to. They'll continue to launch these attacks. I mean, we did, in fairness, see a lull in attacks here. I'm here in Kiev. We saw, we've seen a lull last week or so, and that's most people assume that's an attempt by the Russians to, you know, prevent any very awkward visuals of, you know, large-scale massacres of civilians, which apparently, judging by Trump's reaction is one of the things that does seem to, does seem to reach him and sort of touch him when he sees these footage of these, you know, apartment buildings and hospitals and whatnot that have been attacked and bombed, you know, targeted hits and large numbers of civilians killed.

So the Russians seem to have sort of made a decision to not do that. for a window before the Alaska summit and now this at this meeting on yesterday it was. But I think, you know, they're going to continue with the attacks broadly. And they have been continuing the attacks all through elsewhere along the front. So, you know, I think that's going to, I don't anticipate there being any change there. Michael, then, you talked about the differences between getting a peace deal and whether or not you need a ceasefire. Wouldn't we need a ceasefire then? I mean, if Russia's going to continue to attack, that doesn't seem like it's on route to a peace deal.

Well, true, but I think making a little bit too much of this distinction because I think what people are worried about is that exactly as you say, Putin's not interested in near-term peace or a near-term ceasefire. And if he thinks he's winning, why would he be? And therefore, people worry that by President Trump adopting this sort of framework himself, that means he's going to allow Putin to fight indefinitely without any further American pressure. But that last assumption may be wrong. I think that Trump may decide in a couple of weeks, you know, Vladimir, I tried being nice, and I tried being nice all winter in spring, in fact, and I'm getting tired of it. And these images do horrify me, and I can see that you're not serious about peace. So now is time for more pressure. And, you know, Trump likes the secondary tariffs as his preferred method. That may not be my preferred method, but the key point is it could constitute increased pressure in a meaningful amount.

And I think we should be moving towards that by September-ish. if there's no progress. Peter Donald Trump made it clear Ukraine should not be part of NATO. We also heard after yesterday's meeting, the Russian foreign ministry came out and said the deployment of NATO troops in Ukraine cannot be part of any security guarantees. What kind of security guarantees from NATO countries would Russia tolerate as part of a peace deal, do you think? Well, I mean, I think they'll tolerate as little as possible.

And in a sense, it's kind of ridiculous for. us, and not criticizing you here, this is the broader debate, but it's kind of ridiculous that we're all debating, you know, what Russia will accept or not. Russia's against any security guarantees for Ukraine. Russia's against the existence of Ukraine. So, you know, really, if we allow Russia to set the terms of the debate, then we're never going to get anywhere. But in a practical sense, you know, of course, there is a practical aspect to this debate. I mean, I think that troops on the ground in Ukraine is the goal from a Ukrainian point of view, but it's not clear what they do. You know, we've heard this debate for a long time now about the coalition of the willing.

Nobody can say what they're actually willing to do. You know, would they fight? Would they defend themselves? Are they going to be human shields, essentially, or just monitors? You know, so it's really unclear about what the purpose of this deployment would be if they're not going to be combat troops. I would say the most realistic security guarantee type support from the West would be twofold. One, to focus even more and to really invest very heavily in strengthening Ukraine's military. and military industrial base, and to build on what already exists, which is already Europe's

largest army, which is already a very technically advanced army, which is already a very powerful industrial base. So that can be dramatically escalated with Western support. And we're seeing that already. And the other aspect would be some form of an air shield, similar to what we're seeing provided to Israel in recent months, shooting down missiles and drones fired by the Iranians. Now, that could be done over parts of Ukraine, if not the whole of Ukraine, without them coming into direct conflict with the Russians. So it could potentially be more realistic. Just before we go, Michael, I am curious. Vladimir Putin certainly is prioritizing the control of the Donbass region in eastern Ukraine as part of any deal. Why is that region so central for him?

It's an excellent question. You know, for one thing, it's what he almost has in his grasp. And so it's maybe more easily attainable. And if he looks at a map with President Trump and tries to woo Trump to his side, he can say, listen, it's only a little bit more land. Why don't you just, You know, if this is all we need to do to end the war, can't you let me have it? But also, of course, historically, that has been a Russian-speaking part of Ukraine. It has had certain kinds of industry and also certain kinds of minerals that may be of interest to Putin. But I don't make too much of it. I think, like Peter said, Putin really wants all of Ukraine or certainly all of the eastern half. And he's sort of imagining what he can realistically get, maybe as opposed to having

deep preference for one part versus another. Peter, just before we go, 20 seconds. Is there any way this war ends within a year? Yeah, sure. I mean, there's lots of ways it can end. I think, but the key has got to be pressure on Russia. We've got to see a lot more economic pressure on Russia and fundamentally a lot more military pressure on Russia. That means giving Ukraine more weapons, more support and a crucially long-range capabilities to bring this war home to Russia. Okay. Michael and Peter, thank you so much for this. My pleasure. Thank you. Michael O'Hanlon is a foreign policy and defense expert at the Think Tank Brookings Institution, and Peter Dickinson is the Ukraine editor at the Atlantic Council.

You've been listening to the current podcast. My name is Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening. I'll talk to you soon. For more CBC podcasts, go to cbc.ca.ca slash podcasts.