Meetings with Trump and Bernam: What Did Zelenskyy Bring Back from London and Washington?

At first glance, neither meeting produced any major surprises or new aid packages worth tens of billions of dollars. However, diplomats and political analysts emphasize that Zelenskyy had other strategic objectives: to ensure the continuity of British support following the change in government, to solidify a new model of military-technological cooperation with allies, and, most importantly, to reset relations with the Donald Trump administration.

Talks in Washington

Zelenskyy’s meeting with Trump was already his fourth at the White House. The previous one, in 2025, shocked not only political circles but also the public on both sides of the Atlantic. The argument in the Oval Office, the Ukrainian president’s remarks about “no maps,” and J.D. Vance’s harsh outbursts became one of the most talked-about diplomatic scenes of recent years, if not decades.

Much has changed since then for both Trump and Zelenskyy. Ukraine is increasingly positioning itself not merely as a country asking for support, but as a partner offering technologies and solutions that have proven their effectiveness on the actual battlefield.

Trump himself finds himself in a more difficult position. Negotiations to end the Russian-Ukrainian war have reached an impasse, and Washington has yet to achieve any results in the Middle East as well.

Trump, who likes to speak in terms of victories, trump cards, and strong hands, has this time found himself without a real victory to showcase to American voters.

The official reason for Zelenskyy’s visit was the funeral of Lindsey Graham, one of Ukraine’s most influential supporters among American Republicans. According to media reports, the meeting between Zelenskyy and Trump was organized quickly, in just a few hours, and without the presence of the press. Following the talks, both sides described the meeting as “good.”

According to him, we should not expect any breakthrough agreements at this time, as there are no preconditions for a radical change in the situation regarding relations with Russia.

“Neither Ukraine nor—to use Trump’s own words—does he himself currently have the ‘cards’ that could quickly change the course of events,” he explains on the air of the Suspilne television channel.

According to public reports, one of the key outcomes of the talks was progress on the issue of localizing the production of Patriot systems. This is not just about acquiring new systems; Ukraine is seeking licenses and manufacturing capabilities to repair, maintain, and, in the future, partially manufacture certain components on its own territory. If this process is implemented, it will mark a qualitative transformation of Ukraine’s entire air defense system.

However, Roman Bezsmertnyy, a politician, diplomat, and Ukraine’s Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, has a different interpretation of the talks between Zelenskyy and Trump. In his view, the officially stated topics—Patriot production, funding, and licenses—may have been only the public part of the agenda.

According to Bezsmertnyy, issues such as licenses, the transfer of missiles, or the allocation of $400 million do not require hours of negotiations.

“If the Pentagon is ready to transfer the missiles, then they will be transferred. If there is a political decision regarding the $400 million, it will be implemented. These are technical issues,” he emphasized.

Instead, the diplomat speculates that the closed portion of the meeting may have addressed much more sensitive topics. In his view, the events of recent weeks in the Novorossiysk and Caspian Sea regions—particularly the attacks on oil infrastructure—directly affect economic interests linked to the Trump family.

Bezsmertnyy noted that the parties may have discussed the limits of Ukraine’s actions regarding Russian oil logistics in the Black and Caspian Seas, as well as the issue of Kazakhstani oil exports through the port of Novorossiysk. According to him, the interests of American businesses, major energy companies, and President Trump’s family are intertwined in this region.

The diplomat believes this explains why the talks were held behind closed doors.

“I don’t think missiles or licenses were the main topic of the talks. It’s no coincidence that the meeting took place behind closed doors,” said Bezsmertnyy, adding that following public accusations regarding potential conflicts of interest involving the Trump family, disclosing details of such a conversation could have been politically sensitive, especially for the U.S. president.

The diplomats interviewed note that the situation now looks more favorable for Ukraine than it did before. And it’s not just about the front lines or European support, but also about the internal political dynamics in the U.S. and the elections scheduled for early November of this year.

Pavlo Klimkin, the former foreign minister, says that for Trump, the war in Ukraine and the situation in the Middle East are interconnected challenges.

Klimkin describes the second option as follows: to identify one track on which to raise the stakes, and a second track on which to actively move forward in terms of negotiations—so to speak, through diplomatic channels. Or, conversely, to lower the stakes on both fronts.

“I believe that, since these issues are mixed up in Trump’s mind—or at least intertwined—we need to understand the logic of the Middle East,” he explains.

Former Foreign Minister and Ambassador to the United Kingdom Vadym Prystaiko believes that we should not overestimate the impact of the Ukraine issue on the upcoming U.S. elections.

“As tragic as it may sound to us, the war in Ukraine is not the factor that will determine the outcome of the U.S. election. Most Americans understand the Russian threat and support Ukraine, so there are many other issues on which Republicans can base their campaign,” he says on the air on Radio NV.

Senate Vote and Support for Ukraine

A positive sign for Ukraine was that yesterday, July 28, the U.S. Senate held its first procedural vote on a bill imposing sanctions against Russia and Iran, which the late Republican Senator Lindsey Graham had been working on for over two years.

“It is symbolic that today, on the day we bid farewell to Senator Lindsey Graham, the Senate held a procedural vote on the sanctions bill against Russia, on which he had worked so hard. This is the first step toward realizing Lindsey’s plans and certainly a step toward peace. It is important that this tool be effective,” Zelenskyy said in a statement.

Volodymyr Ogryzko, former head of Ukraine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2007–2009), explains that this does not yet mean the bill has been definitively adopted. The document must now go through the next stages of the legislative process, including finalizing the text and entering into force.

The previous sanctions law, which targeted adversaries of the U.S., particularly Russia, has effectively expired. This has created a sort of legal loophole: today, nothing obligates the U.S. president to intensify sanctions pressure, and in certain cases, he even has the ability to lift existing restrictions. This is precisely why the new bill is so important, as it aims to re-establish the sanctions mechanism against Russia through legislation.

However, despite some critical remarks from Democrats, these do not currently appear substantial enough to halt the progress of the sanctions bill. The biggest challenge for the bill will likely be its consideration in the House of Representatives, where lawmakers’ positions on this initiative are traditionally less unified. Politicians say a quick vote is not to be expected, as the August congressional recess has pushed the vote back to at least September.

If the House of Representatives supports the bill, the final step will be the U.S. president’s signature. No significant risks are currently anticipated at this stage, as the U.S. president has repeatedly and publicly expressed support for the sanctions initiative launched by Lindsey Graham.

“Trump is increasingly talking about the weakness of the Russian economy. For him, as a businessman, the economic factor could be one of the key determinants in shaping his future strategy toward Russia. I very much hope that the U.S. will opt for a tactical approach: de-escalating tensions around Iran while simultaneously raising the stakes with regard to Russia. For Ukraine, that would be the best-case scenario,” says Klimkin.

London: A Signal That British Policy Toward Ukraine Remains Unchanged

Zelenskyy became the first foreign leader to be received by the new British Prime Minister, Andy Burnham. This fact alone carried symbolic significance. 

Volodymyr Ogryzko explains that in British politics, the new prime minister’s first foreign guest often signals the government’s foreign policy priorities. The choice of Ukraine means that even after a change in government, Kyiv remains among London’s key partners, as “Shelter” previously reported.

It is significant that Ukraine has been granted intellectual property rights to the new British electronic warfare system, Stone Cloak. The country now has the right to independently manufacture the system, scale it up, and integrate it into its own drones. At the same time, the British Army plans to draw on Ukraine’s combat experience to develop a new generation of its own long-range systems.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s series of international meetings continues, but following his visit to the U.S., Ukraine is entering a phase that is no less challenging.

Ahead lie the appointment of a new ambassador to Washington, work on the final adoption of the sanctions bill, the implementation of the defense agreements reached, and preparations for a new phase of diplomatic negotiations.

In the coming months, the effectiveness of Ukrainian diplomacy will determine whether political signals of support from the U.S. can be transformed into concrete decisions that will influence both the course of the war and Ukraine’s future negotiating positions.