US President Donald Trump announced that he had spoken with Vladimir Putin by phone, saying they discussed Ukraine, the Middle East, energy, artificial intelligence, the strength of the dollar, and a range of other topics.
“We both reflected on the Great History of our Nations, and the fact that we fought so successfully together in World War II, remembering that Russia lost tens of millions of people, and we, likewise, lost so many! […] But first, as we both agreed, we want to stop the millions of deaths taking place in the War with Russia/Ukraine. President Putin even used my very strong Campaign motto of, “COMMON SENSE.” We agreed to work together, very closely, including visiting each other’s Nations,” Trump said—omitting any mention of the heavy Ukrainian losses.
“Putin has spent decades orchestrating an information campaign to cloak his current aggression behind propaganda about Russia’s role in defeating Nazism. And it seems to have worked,” responded Ukrainian historian Volodymyr Viatrovych.
Trump also revealed that he and Putin had agreed on the need to prevent millions of deaths. “President Putin even used my campaign slogan: ‘COMMON SENSE.’ We both strongly believe in it. We agreed to work together closely, including visiting each other’s countries. We also agreed that our teams would immediately begin negotiations, starting with a call to Ukrainian President Zelensky to update him on the conversation—which I will do right now,” the U.S. president added.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky later shared the details of his conversation with Trump.
“It was a lengthy discussion. We talked about the possibilities of achieving peace, our readiness to work together at the team level, and our technological capabilities, including drones and other modern industries. I’m grateful to President Trump for his interest in what we can accomplish together. We also discussed our conversation with Scott Bessent and the preparation of our new agreement on security, economic, and resource cooperation. President Trump informed me about the details of his conversation with Putin,” he wrote.
Zelensky also emphasized that Ukraine desires peace more than anyone. “We are defining our joint steps with America to stop Russian aggression and ensure a reliable, lasting peace. As President Trump said, let’s get it done. We agreed on further contacts and meetings,” he added.
Reactions to Trump’s calls with Zelensky and Putin
Western media have already begun actively responding to Trump’s conversations. In its publication, The New York Times emphasizes that Trump “has long been sceptical of Ukraine and has never been particularly supportive of Zelensky.”
“The Ukrainians appear to be facing an effort in which they have little leverage. The call between Putin and Trump came on the same day that the U.S. Secretary of Defence, Pete Hegseth, speaking at the NATO headquarters in Brussels, said that it was an “unrealistic” objective for Ukraine to restore its borders as they were before 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea. Mr. Hegseth added that the U.S. does not support Ukraine’s desire to join NATO as part of a realistic peace plan,” the publication notes.
At the same time, The New York Times highlights that for Putin, this call represented a key turning point, signalling the collapse of the West’s efforts to diplomatically isolate him after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
The Economist also published an article titled Ukraine is cut out of negotiations between America and Russia. The piece noted that just hours before the call, journalists had interviewed Zelensky, who warned that any talks excluding Ukraine would amount to a dangerous betrayal.
“Zelensky admits he still doesn’t fully understand the true intentions of Trump’s new administration. He cautions Americans against sidelining Ukraine, arguing that this has been Putin’s aim from the outset. He also fears the White House could be easily misled: ‘If Russia is left alone with America—whether it’s Putin with Trump or their teams—they will receive manipulative information,'” the article stated.
Ukrainian experts and volunteers have voiced strong reactions. “The first thing that stands out in Trump’s statement about his conversation with Putin is the entirely one-sided nature of the exchange. I can understand what Putin gained, but I fail to see what Trump took away from it. It’s a spectacular face-first dive into the mud by our American partners. The worst part? No one forced them to do it—Trump eagerly jumped into the dirty puddle on his own!” wrote volunteer and recruiter Serhiy Marchenko.
He further noted that Putin had long sought a conversation with the U.S. president not just about Ukraine, but about the prospect of jointly controlling the world. While Biden refused, Trump immediately accepted the Russian dictator’s terms.
“Many will now claim that Trump is cleverly outmanoeuvring Putin. But honestly, who am I to speculate on what’s in Trump’s mind, especially when even he doesn’t seem to know? Still, if Ukraine has a Plan B, now is the time to implement it. Starting today, the U.S. can no longer be counted on as a reliable ally. And it’s not unthinkable that it could cease to be an ally altogether,” Marchenko emphasised.
Oleksandr Krayev, an expert at the Foreign Policy Council Ukrainian Prism, raised concerns that Putin is clearly taking the lead and pulling Trump’s strings.
“There’s far too much focus on World War II—way too much. We’re hearing strange claims again, suggesting that only Russians fought on the Soviet side, and more talk about a ‘shared great history,’ plus endless references to ‘strength and greatness’ without any real substance. This begs the question—are we really doing enough to push our own narrative, as our leadership insists, if Trump can be so easily pulled into Putin’s pseudo-historical conspiracies? The even bigger worry? Ratcliffe is replacing Kellogg in negotiations, and that’s definitely a bad sign,” the foreign policy expert noted.
Oleksandr Krayev also pointed to one silver lining: Trump still sees Ukraine as a serious partner, open to dialogue and cooperation. “Unfortunately, that’s where the positives end. The problems, however, are numerous and far-reaching. There’s the comparison to Putin—equating the aggressor with its victim, seriously? Then there’s the ‘God bless the peoples of Russia and Ukraine’ remark. And, perhaps most concerning, the strong focus on Trump’s upcoming meeting with Vance and Rubio in Munich. By then, they’ll likely have a draft strategy in place—one that, with Vance involved, is unlikely to be particularly pro-Ukrainian.
That makes Munich all the more critical. Ukraine can’t just show up—it needs to come fully prepared, as if stepping into the first day of high-stakes negotiations,” he warned.
Political expert and international lawyer Andriy Smolii noted that the global order of the past 70–80 years has effectively collapsed—first at Putin’s hands, and now at Trump’s.
“Putin repeated all his usual talking points to Trump about the so-called ‘root causes’ of the war. Let me remind you—the main cause is simply the existence of Ukrainians and Ukraine. And we all know about the ‘Istanbul’ demands from the world’s number one terrorist. Regardless of the outcome, none of this is likely to bring ‘peace.’ At best, it may placate the aggressor, much like Europe did in 1937–1938. So even if Trump’s approach creates a temporary illusion of peace, the long-term consequences could be even more catastrophic—on a global scale,” he added.
Serhii Herasymchuk, director of the Regional Initiatives and Neighbourhood Programme at the Ukrainian Prism think tank, suggested that the real focus of the discussions was a potential Trump visit to Moscow on May 9.
“It’s already known that Xi will be there, so a three-way discussion is possible. Orbán will also be present—whether he calculated that Trump might attend or already had prior knowledge,” he added.
Viktoriia Voitsitska, Director of Advocacy in the Energy Sector at the International Centre for Ukrainian Victory (ICUV) and a former MP, pointed out that although Ukraine’s lack of agency at this critical juncture is deeply frustrating—just look at Trump’s recent conversation with Putin—it’s important to reflect on recent history.
“Victoria Nuland initially flew to Moscow for talks with the Kremlin, only to then push for Ukraine—the Verkhovna Rada and the country as a whole—to hold elections in the occupied territories of ORDLO,” Voitsitska recalled. “When we tried to assert our own position, arguing that this was impossible, Nuland made it clear: ‘Either you agree, or you are left to face Russia alone.’ For 11 years, we were treated as an object. Today, it’s time for a sober reckoning: Where do we really have leverage? What is that leverage? And most importantly, how and when should we use it?”
