Trump–Zelensky Talks Take Place Without European Union Participation

The format of the upcoming meeting between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky in Florida points to a change in the logic of international consultations surrounding Ukraine. The absence of European Union leaders means that the key discussion will be conducted directly between Kyiv and Washington, without multilateral coordination of positions.

Over recent years, issues related to Ukraine have mainly been discussed in expanded formats involving the EU, NATO, and individual states. European institutions have played not only a political but also a financial role as partners of Kyiv. However, the current meeting falls outside this framework, making it atypical for established diplomatic practice.

Preparations for the talks indicate that the Ukrainian side sought to minimize the risks of such a format. Volodymyr Zelensky held consultations in advance with NATO and a number of world leaders, aligning key positions. This suggests an attempt to preserve external support and avoid divergences following direct dialogue with the American side.

For Donald Trump, a bilateral format creates room for a more flexible line of conduct. The absence of EU representatives reduces the pressure of collective commitments and allows issues to be discussed in terms of direct U.S. interests. For Ukraine, this format provides an opportunity to convey its position without intermediaries, but at the same time increases dependence on the stance of a single key partner.

European officials are already expressing concern about the situation. Their assessments emphasize Trump’s unpredictability and the difficulty of building scenarios with minimal risk. Excluding the EU from the negotiation process heightens fears of being confronted with decisions made without their participation.

At the same time, the substance of the talks remains unknown. The agenda of the meeting has not been disclosed, and it is unclear whether it will lead to a revision of U.S. approaches to supporting Ukraine or to changes in the formats of future consultations. For now, it can only be said that the architecture of dialogue is becoming more fragmented and less collective.