In the shadow of St. Peter’s Basilica, two leaders locked in conversation offered a rare glimpse of possibility in an otherwise grinding and brutal conflict. President Donald Trump’s meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskky, though brief, was thick with symbolism and fraught with the difficult realities of war and diplomacy.

Much of the early optimism surrounding this encounter rests on surface appearances: two leaders, despite past confrontations, finding common ground amid the solemnity of a papal funeral. Yet appearances, however powerful, cannot obscure the hard questions that remain. Mr Trump’s subsequent comments on social media pulled back the curtain on his real concerns ~ a fear that Russian President Vladimir Putin, far from seeking peace, may be stringing the world along while inflicting renewed suffering on Ukrainian civilians. Mr Trump’s frustration was palpable as he mused publicly whether more aggressive financial tools like secondary sanctions might now be necessary to compel genuine negotiations. This shift in tone is important.

Advertisement

Mr Trump has long signalled a belief that Ukraine must negotiate from a position of realism rather than resistance, even if it means painful compromises. His oft-repeated argument that Mr Zelenskky holds “no cards” in the diplomatic deck underscores this belief. Yet, by questioning Mr Putin’s sincerity so openly after the meeting, Mr Trump seems to acknowledge that a bad peace ~ one extracted through deception ~ could be worse than a prolonged conflict. It is tempting to see the meeting in Rome as a turning point. The involvement of European leaders like British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron, visibly supporting the dialogue, suggests an emerging consensus: that the war must be ended not just quickly, but justly.

Mr Zelenskky’s own remarks that the encounter could become “historic” reflect an understanding that while peace must be built on negotiation, it cannot be achieved through capitulation. Still, tension runs through Mr Trump’s stance. On one hand, he sees urgency in ending the war, driven perhaps by domestic political considerations and the broader fatigue in the West. On the other, his instincts ~ sharpened from years of deal-making ~ tell him that trusting Mr Putin too readily could lead to a hollow, unstable peace. His proposal to intensify economic pressure rather than offer immediate concessions signals a harder, more sceptical posture that will likely influence the months ahead.

Ultimately, the meeting between Mr Trump and Mr Zelenskky represents neither a breakthrough nor a mere photo opportunity. It is a reminder that diplomacy, especially amid war, demands more than personal rapport. It demands clarity about the motives of one’s adversaries, the resilience to withstand bad-faith offers, and above all, the patience to build a peace that can endure. Whether this fragile bridge leads to lasting stability will depend not on words exchanged in Rome, but on the hard choices that follow.