Putin wants it to end, I will tell you that very strongly.
As NATO convenes in Turkey, the world watches a fragile alliance navigate the competing gravitational pulls of war and diplomacy. Russia's devastating strikes on Kyiv — timed to coincide with the summit's opening — serve as a brutal reminder that the conflict in Ukraine is not a negotiating abstraction but a living catastrophe. At the center of it all stands President Trump, whose belief in the promise of U.S.-Russian cooperation sits uneasily alongside the urgent pleas of a Ukrainian president watching his capital burn. The summit asks an ancient question: whether dialogue and deterrence can coexist, or whether one must yield to the other.
- Russia launched a massive barrage of missiles and drones against Kyiv on the eve of the summit, killing at least eleven civilians — a deliberate signal of Moscow's resolve as NATO leaders gathered to discuss countering its aggression.
- Trump held a 90-minute call with Putin just hours before the strikes, with the Kremlin describing it as constructive and Trump insisting Putin genuinely wants the war to end — a claim defense analysts say lacks concrete evidence.
- Zelenskyy, whose capital was struck overnight, is pressing NATO allies and the United States for stronger commitments on air defense systems, arriving in Turkey with urgent needs and uncertain assurances.
- Tensions within the alliance run deeper than Ukraine: Trump's grievances over NATO members' refusal to support U.S. operations against Iran and his past pursuit of Greenland continue to strain the coalition's unity.
- Analysts warn the summit could fracture rather than fortify — with even a modest, breakdown-free outcome now being framed as a meaningful success given the volatility Trump brings to the table.
President Trump has traveled to Turkey for a NATO summit that arrives under the shadow of renewed Russian aggression and deep fractures within the alliance itself. The timing could not be more charged: on the eve of the gathering, Russian forces launched dozens of missiles and hundreds of drones at Kyiv, killing at least eleven people and wounding scores more. Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, who is scheduled to appear at the summit, watched his capital burn and made clear that he expects far greater military support — especially air defense systems — from the United States and Europe.
Just one day before the strikes, Trump had spoken with Putin for nearly ninety minutes in a call the Kremlin described as businesslike and constructive. Putin's aide said Trump emphasized the potential for significant U.S.-Russian cooperation once the war ends, while Putin offered an optimistic account of Russian military progress. Trump also spoke with Zelenskyy that same day. When asked Monday why Putin appeared unintimidated, Trump insisted the Russian leader does feel pressure and wants the war to end — a claim he repeated with conviction. He suggested both leaders are now motivated toward a settlement and that the summit could advance those talks.
Defense analyst Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution was more measured. He told CNBC he had seen no concrete evidence that Putin is ready to negotiate in good faith. He acknowledged that a successful summit would require NATO members to commit to higher defense spending and find new ways to pressure Moscow — both difficult asks. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has spoken of turning allied commitments into concrete results, but the risks of a breakdown remain real.
Trump's relationship with NATO has long been turbulent. He has repeatedly criticized allies for refusing to support U.S. military operations, including against Iran, and tensions over his pursuit of Greenland and the broader American posture in the Middle East continue to complicate alliance unity. Zelenskyy is scheduled to meet with Trump on Wednesday, but Trump's past praise of Putin and clashes with the Ukrainian leader raise questions about whether he views further military aid as the right path — or whether he sees negotiation and the promise of future cooperation as the faster route to peace. O'Hanlon put it simply: even avoiding a breakdown would count as a win.
President Trump is traveling to Turkey this week for a NATO summit that arrives at a moment of acute tension within the alliance. Russia has intensified its assault on Ukraine, NATO members are under pressure to increase military spending, and the United States is demanding that its allies contribute more to regional security challenges—including operations in the Middle East that many European nations view with skepticism.
The backdrop is grim. On Sunday, Russian forces unleashed dozens of missiles and hundreds of strike drones against Kyiv, Ukraine's capital. The barrage killed at least eleven people and wounded many more, according to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and independent reporting. The timing was deliberate: the attack came on the eve of the NATO gathering, where Zelenskyy is scheduled to appear. The message was unmistakable. As the alliance prepares to discuss how to counter Russian aggression, Moscow is demonstrating the scale of its firepower and its willingness to use it.
Trump's role in the coming days will be central and unpredictable. Just one day before the strikes on Kyiv, he spoke with Putin for nearly ninety minutes in a call initiated by the United States. The Kremlin characterized the conversation as businesslike and constructive. According to Putin's aide Yuri Ushakov, Trump emphasized the potential for Russia and America to achieve significant cooperation once the Ukraine war concludes, while Putin presented an optimistic account of Russian military progress. Trump also spoke with Zelenskyy that same day. The Ukrainian leader, watching his capital burn hours later, made clear that he expects the United States and Europe to provide more military support—particularly air defense systems.
When asked Monday morning why Putin seemed unintimidated by their recent conversation, Trump insisted that the Russian leader does feel pressure and genuinely wants the war to end. "I think he does feel pressure," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. "He wants to end it, and Ukraine wants to end it, and we're in talks, and we'll see if we can get it ended." He repeated the claim moments later: "Putin wants it to end, I will tell you that very strongly." Trump suggested that both Putin and Zelenskyy are now motivated to reach a settlement, and that the NATO summit would provide an opportunity to advance those talks.
Michael O'Hanlon, a defense analyst at the Brookings Institution, offered a more cautious assessment. When asked about Trump's confidence that Putin is ready to negotiate, O'Hanlon said he had seen no concrete evidence of that shift. "I hope President Trump's right, but I haven't seen proof yet," he told CNBC. O'Hanlon acknowledged that the summit faces significant risks. A successful outcome would require NATO members to commit to increased defense spending and to find new ways to pressure Putin. Progress on spending appears possible—NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said in May that the goal is to "turn Allied commitments into concrete results" at the gathering. But the prospect of talks breaking down is real.
Trump has a history of friction with NATO, particularly over the alliance's reluctance to support American military operations. During his campaign, he frequently criticized NATO members for refusing to assist the United States in clearing the Strait of Hormuz during operations against Iran. That grievance remains unresolved. There are also lingering tensions over Trump's previous attempts to acquire Greenland, a Danish territory, and over the broader U.S. war against Iran—both issues that complicate the alliance's unity.
Zelenskyy arrives in Turkey hoping to secure stronger commitments from NATO members to bolster Ukraine's air defenses. He is scheduled to meet with Trump on Wednesday afternoon. But Trump's past statements—he has praised Putin and clashed with Zelenskyy before—suggest he may not view further military aid to Ukraine as the path forward. Instead, Trump appears to believe that negotiation and the promise of future U.S.-Russian cooperation offer a faster route to peace.
O'Hanlon summed up the stakes plainly: "I can imagine so many issues where this could go wrong." He said that even incremental progress and the absence of a breakdown would count as a win. The NATO summit will test whether the alliance can maintain unity on Russia strategy while accommodating Trump's conviction that dialogue, not escalation, is the answer.
Citações Notáveis
I can imagine so many issues where this could go wrong.— Michael O'Hanlon, Brookings Institution
The United States and Europe have enough strength to stop this terror.— Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Ukrainian President
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why does the timing of Russia's attack matter so much? They could have struck Kyiv any day.
Because it's a statement. Russia is saying to NATO and to Trump: your summit, your talk of unity—none of it changes what we can do. It's a show of force right before the conversation begins.
And Trump's call with Putin the day before—was that a mistake?
That depends on what you believe Trump was trying to accomplish. If he was signaling that the U.S. is open to negotiation, Putin heard it. If he was trying to pressure Putin to hold back, it didn't work.
Zelenskyy wants more weapons. Trump seems to want a deal. Can both things happen?
Not easily. A deal usually requires one side to give ground. If Trump pushes Zelenskyy to negotiate from a weaker position, Zelenskyy loses leverage. If Trump keeps arming Ukraine, Putin has less reason to talk.
So what does success look like at this summit?
According to the experts, just not failing. If NATO members agree to spend more on defense and don't publicly fracture over Ukraine strategy, that's a win. Nobody's expecting breakthroughs.
Do you think Putin actually wants the war to end?
Trump says yes. The analysts say they haven't seen evidence of it. Russia is still striking cities. That's the real answer.