'Time to make a deal,' Trump tells Zelenskyy as he complains US has got 'nothing back' from Ukraine

Trump is asking Zelenskyy to reach a settlement with Russia and end the war. The article does not specify whether that would involve territory, security guarantees, or other conditions. That omission matters because the terms would determine whether Ukraine considers the agreement acceptable and enforceable.

Trump said Zelenskyy “can make a deal” and claimed he could have done so two years earlier. Zelenskyy instead called for a trilateral meeting involving Ukraine, Russia, and the United States. Steve Witkoff, a US special envoy, was due to meet Vladimir Putin after the Oslo talks.

A final agreement would require Russia and Ukraine to accept the terms. The United States could help broker or support the process, while European countries could also influence security and implementation. The article describes ongoing contacts, not a completed agreement or a confirmed negotiating framework.

A special envoy is a government representative assigned to handle a particular diplomatic issue or negotiation. The role lets a leader use a focused channel for sensitive talks without making every contact a formal summit. The article identifies Steve Witkoff as the US special envoy involved in the Ukraine-related discussions.

Witkoff headed a US delegation that met Zelenskyy in Oslo. Finnish President Alexander Stubb and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre also joined the talks. Witkoff was scheduled to travel to Russia on Wednesday for a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

His role places him between the main parties at a crucial moment. He can carry messages, explore possible terms, and report positions to US leaders. However, the article does not say that Witkoff had authority to sign an agreement. The talks show diplomacy was continuing, but no settlement had been reached.

The article does not state how much military, financial, or humanitarian support the United States has provided. Using widely cited US government figures through January 2025, the totals were approximately $66.2 billion in security assistance, $30.2 billion in direct budget support, and $4.1 billion in humanitarian assistance. The date matters because aid commitments and deliveries change.

Military support includes weapons, equipment, training, and related assistance. Financial support helps Ukraine’s government keep operating, while humanitarian aid supports civilians affected by the war. These categories are counted separately, so they should not be added without checking the source’s accounting rules.

The scale helps explain why Trump described US support as “tremendous.” It also explains why aid has become politically contentious as he says American taxpayers are tired of it. The article gives no newer total, so any current figure would require an updated official accounting.

Trump’s complaint is about the lack of a visible, direct return for US assistance. He said America had received “nothing back” except “grief, death,” and “tremendous monetary loss.” He also blamed the war for high diesel prices and said American taxpayers were tired of supporting Ukraine.

The article does not describe a payment or specific benefit that the United States expected. In general, governments support partners to advance security interests rather than receive a simple financial repayment. Assistance can help Ukraine defend its sovereignty, discourage further aggression, and support stability in Europe. Those are strategic gains, not cash returned to taxpayers.

Trump’s position shows the political pressure surrounding aid. His administration is seeking a deal, while Zelenskyy is seeking continued cooperation, including intelligence sharing. Whether US support continues depends on political choices and negotiations. The article does not measure the broader benefits or costs for America.

US aid and intelligence can affect Ukraine’s ability to detect attacks, protect civilians, and sustain military operations. If either is reduced, Ukraine could face weaker early warning, fewer defensive resources, or slower responses. The article does not quantify the likely military effect, so the outcome would depend on which programs changed and by how much.

Zelenskyy said intelligence sharing was working again and described early warning as vital. He explained that it helps people hear when a ballistic missile is coming. This is a concrete mechanism: information gives authorities time to warn civilians and prepare defenses before an attack arrives.

A continuing reduction could increase pressure on Ukraine during negotiations and on the battlefield. It could also make European support more important. Trump has demanded a deal, while Zelenskyy has emphasized cooperation and peace. The article does not say that a final decision to cut aid or intelligence has been made.

The separate contacts reflect the different positions and responsibilities in the war. Ukraine is defending itself and would have to accept any settlement. Russia is the opposing party and would also need to agree. The United States is a major supporter and is using diplomacy to press for negotiations. The article presents these roles but does not give a detailed negotiating agenda.

Zelenskyy met a US delegation in Oslo, while Witkoff was scheduled to travel to Russia for talks with Putin. Finnish President Alexander Stubb and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre joined the Oslo discussions. Zelenskyy then called for a trilateral meeting with Trump and Putin.

Separate talks can test positions before leaders meet together. A trilateral format could address the main parties at once, but it would not automatically produce agreement. European involvement may matter because the talks took place with Nordic leaders present. The article says discussions continued, not that a formal process had been finalized.

Military alliances, sovereignty, and security guarantees determine whether a peace agreement is merely a ceasefire or a durable settlement. Sovereignty means Ukraine retains authority over its territory and political choices. Alliances can provide collective strength, while guarantees promise help if a party is attacked. Each element changes the risks that Ukraine and Russia would accept.

For example, an agreement might require rules about military deployments, borders, monitoring, and responses to violations. A guarantee is meaningful only if its provider, trigger, and form of assistance are clear. An alliance may involve broader obligations, while a separate guarantee could be narrower. These are general features of peace agreements, not terms reported in this article.

The article says Trump wants a deal but gives no details about alliances or guarantees. Zelenskyy’s call for talks with Trump and Putin shows that security remains tied to diplomacy. Any final settlement would need to reconcile Ukraine’s protection and sovereignty with Russia’s acceptance and credible enforcement.