Trump Could Force Putin to Negotiate but Hasn’t, Zelensky Says

Zelensky’s central claim is that Trump already has tools strong enough to bring Putin into negotiations. He says the issue is not a lack of leverage, but that Trump has not yet used it. This matters because negotiations depend on convincing Russia that continued fighting carries serious costs.

Zelensky identifies sanctions approved by the US Congress as one available tool. Sanctions can restrict financial activity, trade, or access to resources. In this case, Zelensky says the sanctions are “sitting on his desk” and that Trump has the power to act on them. Stronger pressure could make Russia reconsider its refusal to negotiate.

Zelensky does not know why Trump has not acted. He mentions possible political relationships or economic interests only as speculation. He also argues that Putin’s broader goal of occupying Ukraine would continue regardless of which US president serves, making sustained pressure important.

Sanctions are government-imposed restrictions on trade, money, companies, or other economic activity. Their purpose is to punish conduct or create pressure without directly using military force. In this article, Zelensky presents sanctions as a way for Trump to influence Russia’s decisions and encourage negotiations.

The article does not list the specific sanctions approved by Congress. Zelensky says they are available to Trump and that he has the power to act on them. The basic mechanism is pressure: restrictions can reduce access to markets, money, technology, or other economic benefits. That pressure may make continuing the war less attractive.

Sanctions are not described as a guaranteed solution. Zelensky says Trump has not used this leverage and does not know why. He speculates about relationships or economic interests, while emphasizing that Putin continues pursuing territorial objectives. Sanctions would therefore be one part of a wider strategy.

Zelensky estimates that Russia currently controls approximately 18-19% of Ukrainian territory. That figure shows the scale of Russia’s occupation, but his warning focuses on what could happen next. He says Moscow continues pursuing territorial objectives beyond the areas it already controls.

The most immediate danger he identifies is in Donetsk region, especially Sloviansk and Kramatorsk. Their loss could expose routes toward Dnipropetrovsk region, including Pavlohrad and Dnipro. Zelensky also says Russia wants to capture the city of Zaporizhzhia, although Moscow has been unable to do so.

These places remain at risk because the article describes Russian goals as continuing rather than stopping at current holdings. Zelensky says there are no guarantees that further advances would stop after territorial concessions. The risks therefore involve both occupied land and additional strategically important cities and regions.

Zelensky’s warning is about the consequences of giving up heavily defended positions, not only the loss of two cities. He describes Sloviansk and Kramatorsk as important defensive points in Donetsk region. If they fall, Russia could gain opportunities to push farther west toward Dnipropetrovsk region.

The article names Pavlohrad and Dnipro as possible targets along that direction. Zelensky describes the area as a major industrial and machine-building hub that supports Ukraine’s economy. He says its defenses have been heavily fortified, suggesting that the area is both economically important and central to stopping further advances.

Zelensky stresses that no guarantee would ensure Russia stopped after taking those cities. He says surrendering them could expose a vast number of other Ukrainian cities if Putin decided to continue. This is why he calls the risk enormous and rejects territorial concessions as automatically providing safety.

The article does not directly discuss agreeing to a ceasefire along the current front line. It does describe Zelensky’s opposition to further territorial withdrawal and his concern that Russia’s current holdings would become a platform for new advances. In that context, accepting the existing line could mean accepting Russia’s control of approximately 18-19% of Ukraine.

Zelensky says Russia wants Ukraine to withdraw even farther and warns that surrendering Sloviansk and Kramatorsk could expose Dnipropetrovsk region. He also says Russia continues pursuing territorial objectives beyond its current occupation. These facts explain why a ceasefire that froze present positions could be viewed as a substantial compromise, even though the article does not use that exact phrase.

Zelensky also questions whether territorial concessions would produce real safety. He asks where security guarantees would apply if Ukraine first had to withdraw. His position is that a ceasefire must be considered alongside justice, defenses, and the risk of renewed Russian advances.

Security guarantees are commitments intended to protect a country if it faces another attack. The article does not specify what form Ukraine’s guarantees would take. Zelensky’s concern is that promises would mean little if Ukraine had to surrender more land first and Russia retained the ability to continue its campaign.

He says Russia wants Ukraine to withdraw even farther while discussions about guarantees continue. He also warns that giving up Sloviansk and Kramatorsk could open routes toward Pavlohrad, Dnipro, and other cities. The mechanism is straightforward: a weaker or more exposed defensive position could make future protection harder to deliver.

Zelensky therefore links security to territory and enforcement, not just written promises. He says there are no guarantees that Russia would stop after receiving concessions. Since he believes Putin’s objective remains the occupation of Ukraine, any agreement would need to address the possibility of renewed advances.

Bargaining power in war comes from more than battlefield strength. Control of territory affects what each side already holds and what it can demand. Military defenses determine whether further advances are costly. Economic pressure, such as sanctions, can raise the price of aggression. Outside support can provide weapons, money, diplomatic pressure, or political leverage.

The article gives clear examples. Russia controls approximately 18-19% of Ukrainian territory, while Ukraine has heavily fortified areas around Dnipropetrovsk region. Zelensky says losing Sloviansk and Kramatorsk could open routes toward Dnipro and Pavlohrad. He also says Trump could use congressional sanctions to pressure Putin toward negotiations.

These factors interact. Strong defenses can prevent Russia from turning territorial gains into wider advances. Sanctions can increase costs without a direct battlefield clash. US support can strengthen Ukraine’s position, but Zelensky says Putin’s objectives remain broader than current holdings. Negotiations therefore depend on sustained pressure and credible protection.