U.S. President Donald Trump hosted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and seven European leaders at the White House on Monday to discuss ways to resolve the Ukraine crisis. This came after Trump held talks with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin last week in Alaska, a pivotal meeting that ended without any deal.

We invited Cui Zheng, director of the Research Center for Russia, Eastern Europe, and Central Asian Countries at Liaoning University, and Zhao Huirong, a research fellow at the Institute of Russian, Eastern European and Central Asian Studies of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, for a Q&A on the topic. Below are their answers.

1. Was there a major breakthrough in the talks, and what are the key points to watch?

Cui: The overall atmosphere of Trump's meeting with Zelenskyy and the European leaders was relaxed. While I wouldn't call the outcome a major breakthrough, it did help push the conflict resolution process forward. There are four points worth noting.

First, the U.S. agreed to two of Ukraine's key demands: that Washington will be part of any future security guarantees in a peace deal, and that territorial issues will only be discussed directly with Putin.

Second, Putin has softened his stance on a possible one-on-one meeting with Zelenskyy, which shows there is at least some basis for communication and compromise on territorial questions.

Third, Russia did not stop its attacks during the talks and caused more than 10 Ukrainian casualties, signaling that it will continue to take a hard line in future negotiations.

Finally, all sides spoke positively about the meeting. Ukraine repeatedly thanked Trump for his efforts, which shows that despite earlier criticism of his approach, neither Ukraine nor Europe can afford to turn against the United States – they still see the U.S. and Europe as allies.

Zhao: I don't think we can call it a major breakthrough yet. What I would say is that there has been some progress in pushing forward a political and diplomatic path toward resolving the conflict. The main point this time is that in the U.S.-Ukraine-Europe meeting, the parties moved away from the earlier stance – a ceasefire first, otherwise more sanctions on Russia. Instead, the focus has shifted toward the possibility of a U.S.-Russian-Ukrainian leaders' summit and on security guarantees for Ukraine from the U.S. and Europe.

Looking at the results of Trump's call with Putin, and Moscow's response, the chances of a trilateral leaders' meeting have increased. But whether Russia will immediately agree to a Russia-Ukraine summit at the presidential level remains uncertain. Moscow hasn't said yes, but it hasn't rejected it either. Its feedback was that the level of talks could be raised to higher-level officials, which means Russia still wants to see whether Ukraine is willing to make concessions before agreeing to a summit between presidents.

2. What major differences remain between Zelenskyy and Russia? Is Zelenskyy likely to compromise?

Cui: The biggest divide is the issue of land swaps. That essentially means trading away Ukraine's sovereign territory, which is unacceptable. Although this wasn't raised in the multilateral meeting, it was a major topic in the U.S.-Ukraine bilateral talks.

Since the start of the conflict in 2022, Russia has taken control of 99 percent of Luhansk, 76 percent of Donetsk, 73 percent of Zaporizhzhia, 73 percent of Kherson, 4 percent of Kharkiv, and about 1 percent of Dnipropetrovsk. Moscow wants to swap its foothold in Kharkiv and Dnipropetrovsk for full control of Luhansk and Donetsk. For Ukraine, that would mean losing even more land. Neither Ukraine nor Europe can accept such a deal. Any territorial concession would devastate Zelenskyy's presidency and strike at Europe's core values – costs no side is willing to bear.

There's also a sharp difference on sequencing. Ukraine and Europe insist the conflict must begin with a ceasefire, while Russia and, to some extent, the U.S. think a ceasefire isn’t necessary and want to move straight into talks on “lasting peace.” This makes future U.S.-Russia-Ukraine talks extremely complex.

Zhao: For Zelenskyy, compromising on territory is a red line. But in his talks with Trump this time, I could see a significant adjustment – a softening – in his position on territorial issues.

Previously, his stance was very firm: no territory can be traded for peace. Now, his position is that territorial issues can indeed be discussed, but only at the level of a Russia-Ukraine presidential summit – or even a U.S.-Russia-Ukraine summit. That's a noticeable shift.

3. Can these talks pave the way for future U.S.-Russia-Ukraine negotiations?

Cui: Given the fundamental differences between Russia and Ukraine, Moscow's questioning of Zelenskyy’s legitimacy, Europe’s ongoing military aid to Kyiv, Russia’s gains in its summer offensive, the divisions between the U.S. and Europe, and the enormous costs borne by all sides after three years of war, I see this meeting as coordination at best. It may have pushed the process a little forward, but it hasn’t reduced the complexity or difficulty of future trilateral talks. Expectations for major results should remain low.

Zhao: I wouldn't say the path to conflict resolution has been paved yet. What Trump's mediation has done is make more frequent interactions between the sides possible. But the key issues – sharp disagreements over territory and other fundamental problems – are still there. These will have to be gradually worked through in follow-up interactions, and only then will it be possible to reach a ceasefire agreement or a peace deal, so-called.

4. What role did Europe play in the meeting, and how could its involvement affect future negotiations?

Cui: After more than three years of war, Europe has lost access to the Russian market and energy, suffered deindustrialization and capital flight, and faced rising social tensions from the refugee crisis. Yet despite all this, Europe’s voice in resolving the war has often been overshadowed by Washington, which is unacceptable for European countries.

From Europe's perspective, the Trump-Putin talks were risky. Any compromise between Washington and Moscow could spell Ukraine's collapse, politically and militarily – a scenario both Ukraine and Europe are determined to avoid. That's why heavyweight European leaders gathered at the White House: to back Zelenskyy, to put pressure on the U.S., and to send a clear signal that Europe wants to take control of its own destiny.

At the same time, Europe's support for Ukraine is exactly what Russia sees as a security threat, which will make future negotiations even harder. Unless one side makes real concessions, the talks won't deliver much, and the conflict will go on.

Zhao: Europe came to be part of the conflict resolution process and to present their positions to Trump. But judging from Trump's response, Europe's positions are unlikely to play a leading role in resolving the conflict.

Their earlier insistence – ceasefire first, and if no ceasefire then tougher sanctions – was not accepted by Washington. In fact, the U.S. has dropped that approach. On security guarantees, the U.S. is making it clear that Europe has to carry most of the responsibility, while America plays more of a coordinating role. That leaves Europe with huge pressure and obligations.

From Washington's perspective, it hasn't handed leadership to Europe. On security guarantees, the U.S. wants Europe involved mainly to bear the costs. But on territorial issues, these remain to be decided at the level of Russia and Ukraine – possibly with U.S. involvement at the top level.

For Europe, the main achievements this time were, first, that they made their positions clear to Trump; second, on the territorial issue, they prevented the scenario they feared most – Ukraine being forced to compromise on sovereignty in a U.S.-Ukraine deal. That question is now left for a future Russia-Ukraine summit. And third, on security guarantees, they used this issue as a way to keep the U.S. engaged, because Europe is very worried about Washington completely walking away from Ukraine.

5. After this meeting, how do you see the future of the Russia-Ukraine conflict? How close are we to a ceasefire?

Cui: The deep rift over territory and the terms of a ceasefire is slowing the peace process. International efforts continue, but there is still no consensus on the key issues, so the war will drag on. Short-term, temporary ceasefires are becoming more likely, but a long-term truce is not. The side with the battlefield advantage will reject it, because it would only give the other side breathing room to rebuild.

Zhao: Overall, my judgment is that the fighting on the battlefield will continue, and may even intensify. The intensity is unlikely to come down soon. At the same time, diplomatic interactions around conflict resolution will become more frequent. But the fundamental disagreements remain, and bridging them will be extremely difficult. This will require multiple rounds of talks and gradual consensus-building. One or two meetings alone will not be enough to deliver real, substantive results.