At their now infamous meeting in the Oval Office in February, US president Donald Trump told his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky what he considered to be an important home truth: “You’re not in a very good position. You don’t have the cards right now. With us, you start having cards.”
As the pair prepare for their next meeting at his home in Florida, it seems that Mr Trump hasn’t changed his mind. Contemplating the completion of a possible peace deal brokered by his own personal envoys and the Ukrainians, the US president still sounded sceptical: “He doesn’t have anything until I approve it. So we’ll see what he’s got. I think it’s going to go good with him. I think it’s going to go good with Putin.”
President Trump may be right about Ukraine’s present predicament, which is in large part due to the withdrawal of much of America’s previously strong support. But he is wrong to think that President Zelensky is a hopeless supplicant with no advantages of his own. Mr Zelensky can’t win the war – but neither is defeat – the erasure of Ukraine – inevitable.
Quite apart from the demonstrable bravery and resilience of the Ukrainian people, and the still widespread international support for their cause, Mr Zelensky also has a remarkable gift for ingenuity in negotiation.
As things stand, he has been markedly more amenable to talks with Mr Trump’s personal representatives, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, than has Vladimir Putin. In recent weeks, he has taken seriously Mr Trump’s idea for a demilitarised “economic free zone” across the disputed and partially occupied eastern provinces of Ukraine, the Donbas. Kyiv has also, reportedly, been open to dropping its application to join Nato – a key Russian demand – in return for the kind of proper Nato-style security guarantees that America has so far been reluctant to provide.
Before that, he signed the “minerals deal” with the Americans and has indicated a willingness to concede some control over the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant (apparently destined to power cryptocurrency mining).
All of this diplomatic manoeuvring has taken place against the backdrop of renewed Russian missile and drone strikes on Kyiv, a reminder that while talks inch forward, Ukraine’s civilians continue to pay the price of delay.
Now, Mr Zelensky has skilfully played another card – a referendum in Ukraine on any future territorial settlement. It is, of course, a gamble. A peace agreement that Mr Zelensky finds acceptable could nonetheless be rejected by the Ukrainian people. A narrow defeat for what would be Mr Zelensky’s plan would be an especially difficult and divisive outcome for his country and its future war effort.
Such a result would be interpreted, correctly, as a repudiation of his leadership, and would surely prompt his resignation. The Russians would seize upon it as a pretext to escalate their campaign of terror against the Ukrainian people, while whatever vestigial sympathy for Ukraine still lingers in Washington would promptly evaporate. Even Ukraine’s most powerful European allies would despair. Organising such a vote would also be extraordinarily difficult in active war zones and across the Ukrainian diaspora. Mr Zelensky says a 60-day truce would be needed – a pause that would also suit him on the battlefield.
Yet the chances of success for this referendum ploy are strong enough to justify Mr Zelensky putting it to Mr Trump. Any change to Ukraine’s borders can only be legal under the constitution if it is confirmed in a national referendum. Any end to the war that leads to a lasting peace, with minimal dissent, would have to command a democratic mandate in Ukraine.
Ukraine stands little chance of regaining all the ground lost since President Putin’s “special military operation” was launched in February 2022, let alone Crimea, lost in 2014. If a new border were drawn along the current front line, that might be judged the best that could realistically be hoped for – devastating as it would be for the Ukrainians thus abandoned to Russian hegemony. But, by the same token, Mr Zelensky can argue that neither he nor his people, in a free referendum vote, could accept Russia’s demand that they withdraw from areas in Donetsk and Luhansk that Russian forces have been unable to seize militarily.
Forging this link between democratic legitimacy and territory is a smart move by Mr Zelensky, as is his now customary air of abject obeisance in the presence of an increasingly imperial Mr Trump. Their meeting in Washington in October went off far better than anyone involved had any right to expect (helped by the absence of the rebarbative JD Vance), and it is at least possible that Mr Zelensky will receive a fair hearing from Mr Trump at Mar-a-Lago.
Where Mr Zelensky has been the epitome of sweet reasonableness, engaging seriously with American proposals, the Russians have been obdurate, making themselves look like the brutally stubborn irredentists they surely are. In the past, Mr Trump has said he is becoming weary of Putin, and suspects he may be playing him along. Reality about Russian insincerity may yet fully dawn on Mr Trump in the coming days.
Mr Zelensky never held all the cards. But he does have a hand he can play – and a deal that can be won. This poker game is far from over.
Ukraine is showing fighting spirit, and its allies must respond
What Susie Wiles was really trying to tell us about Trump in Vanity Fair
The BBC has no choice but to teach Trump a lesson about free speech
The shocking brutality behind Gaza’s crumbling ceasefire
Starmer needs to tell a better Christmas story about Labour
Thanks to Independent readers, young people will have a safe haven to call for help
