In Ankara, Trump Reaches Out to Zelensky and Shuts the Door on Putin

Introduction: a summit that reeks of gunpowder and diplomacy

A meeting announced at the worst possible moment for Moscow

The White House confirmed on July 5, 2026 that Donald Trump will meet Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Ankara, on the sidelines of the NATO summit scheduled for July 7 and 8. Deputy White House press secretary Anna Kelly confirmed that the American president will also cross paths with Syrian transitional president Ahmed al-Sharaa during the same trip, a diplomatic double-header that speaks volumes about the ambition behind this journey. This summit, the 36th in the history of the Alliance and the second hosted by Turkey since Istanbul in 2004, is being held at the presidential complex in Beştepe, under the chairmanship of Secretary General Mark Rutte.

The timing is no accident. On the eve of this bilateral meeting, Trump is first set to see Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Tuesday evening, ahead of the NATO leaders' dinner. It is within this three-step sequence — Erdogan, then Zelensky, then al-Sharaa — that a piece of the geopolitical balance of summer 2026 is being decided, spanning the war in Ukraine, Syria's reshuffling, and Turkey's repositioning within the Atlantic Alliance.

An 85-minute call that shifted the tone

The weekend before the summit, an 85-minute phone call took place between Trump and Zelensky on America's Independence Day, followed by a separate exchange with Vladimir Putin. Zelensky called the exchange "a real chance to end this war," adding that "America's resolve is decisive." A senior American official indicated that Trump plans to call Putin back after his meeting with Zelensky in Ankara, in a calculated pressure play.

This sandwich diplomacy — talk to Kyiv, talk to Moscow, come back to Kyiv — reflects a familiar Trump method: keep every option open while projecting the appearance of control. I'll say it plainly: this diplomatic gymnastics both irritates and reassures me in equal measure. It irritates because it treats a war of Russian aggression like a real-estate negotiation. It reassures because, for once in months, the Western agenda seems to be moving rather than stalling. I'll take the compromise on style if the substance delivers a real ceasefire.

The Ankara summit: a military showcase and a credibility test for NATO

70 billion euros, and aid that can't stay on paper

According to several Turkish outlets, NATO is preparing to announce nearly 70 billion euros in military aid to Kyiv for 2026, a sum that, if fully confirmed, would mark one of the Alliance's most substantial commitments since Russia's invasion began. The summit is also expected to unveil joint defense projects, including joint weapons production involving European countries and Canada.

Thirty-two NATO leaders, along with partners from the Gulf and the Indo-Pacific, are expected in Beştepe. This expanded format illustrates a reality Western doctrine must fully embrace: defending Ukraine is no longer a purely European matter — it has become a credibility test for the entire free world against the authoritarian axis formed by Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea.

Erdogan, the awkward but useful host

Turkey occupies a singular position: a NATO member that keeps channels open with Moscow while hosting this pivotal summit. Foreign Policy summed up the mood in one word: "angsty," given how visible the fault lines within the Alliance remain, between the firm posture of the Baltic states and Scandinavia and Ankara's more cautious realpolitik. The Boston Globe notes that Erdogan's personal ties to Trump give Turkey a rare diplomatic edge in this context.

Zelensky in Ankara: the diplomacy of courage, not comfort

A president who gives no ground on substance

For more than four years, Volodymyr Zelensky has turned every foreign trip into a chance to restate a truth too often forgotten in some weary Western circles: Ukraine is fighting for its survival, not for a comfortable territorial compromise. His presence in Ankara, amid American-Turkish wrangling over fighter jets, must not obscure the essential point: every day of war costs Ukrainian lives.

Ukrainian outlet UNN reports that the meeting between Trump and Zelensky in Ankara is seen in Kyiv as a chance to lock in military support before the fall, traditionally a harder season for Ukraine's energy infrastructure.

The red line that does not move

Despite diplomatic pressure, Kyiv holds a consistent line: no territorial concession imposed from outside. This is a point on which Zelensky refuses to bend, and rightly so. Giving ground on this principle would reward aggression — a precedent neither Ukraine nor the West can afford to set in front of Moscow, Beijing, or Tehran, all of whom are watching this outcome closely.

Trump, the one military file where he earns credit

A posture that, on this specific file, serves the West

Credit should be given where it's due. On the strictly military front, Donald Trump is this time pushing for a tangible strengthening of the Western defense apparatus against Russia, insisting that arms deliveries to Ukraine continue while keeping pressure on Russian diplomacy. If confirmed by actions in Ankara, this orientation is a positive signal for NATO's collective deterrence.

The joint arms-production projects floated for the summit, involving American, European, and Canadian defense industries, strengthen the Alliance's ability to sustain a prolonged war effort without relying solely on existing stockpiles. This is exactly the kind of structural decision that has been missing for far too long.

The flip side still needs watching

That said, caution is warranted: Trump has also sent contradictory signals in recent months, torn between eagerness to strike a quick peace deal and displayed firmness toward Moscow. The consistency of his Ukraine policy will depend on actions taken in Ankara, not just announcements.

Syria, the trip's second diplomatic front

Al-Sharaa, an unexpected but necessary interlocutor

The planned meeting with Ahmed al-Sharaa, Syria's transitional president, shows the scope of the American agenda in Ankara. Post-Assad Syria remains a fragile project, where Iranian influence and residual pro-Russian networks continue to weigh on regional stability. That Washington chose this moment to open direct dialogue with Damascus signals a desire to build a regional architecture less favorable to Tehran and Moscow.

This choice is not trivial in the broader context of Western doctrine: every setback for Iranian influence in the Levant is a strategic gain for the entire Western camp and for the security of Israel, an indispensable ally in a region where the Tehran-Moscow-Beijing axis is constantly seeking to expand its reach.

A diplomacy of simultaneity

By packing Erdogan, Zelensky, and al-Sharaa into a single trip, Trump is betting on simultaneity to maximize the media and diplomatic impact of his stop in Ankara. It's a risky method — spreading focus can hurt the depth of each file — but it does demonstrate a capacity for multiple action that an isolated Moscow can no longer claim.

Russia, the great absentee and the great loser of the summit

Putin watches from afar as the West regroups

While Trump multiplies his meetings in Ankara, Vladimir Putin stays on the sidelines of a summit reshaping Western military alliances. This absence is not a strategic choice on his part: it is the direct consequence of four years of aggression that have isolated Russia from nearly every Western multilateral institution.

The Kremlin nonetheless keeps hoping for a scenario in which Washington would impose unilateral concessions on Kyiv. This reading, largely disproven by recent events in Ankara, shows just how trapped Moscow remains in its own propaganda about the balance of power.

Isolation that has yet to translate into de-escalation

Diplomatic isolation does not mean military retreat. Russian bombing of Ukrainian infrastructure continues unabated, proof that Putin's isolation on the international stage has, for now, no tangible deterrent effect on the ground.

The US Congress, an internal check on Trump's generosity toward Ankara

A bipartisan opposition complicating the Turkish agenda

While the Ukraine file moves forward, the Turkish leg of the summit remains bogged down on the American legislative front. Lawmakers from both parties, led notably by Republican Senator Jim Risch, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, firmly oppose any reintegration of Turkey into the F-35 program as long as Ankara keeps its Russian S-400 systems, according to the Associated Press.

This congressional pushback reflects a structural tension in American foreign policy under Trump: the executive branch wants to move quickly on Turkish files for geopolitical and personal reasons, while the legislature imposes a strict legal framework, notably via the CAATSA law, which remains in force.

A test for the strength of America's checks and balances

This tug-of-war between the White House and Congress over the Turkish file shows that American institutions, despite legitimate criticism of other aspects of the Trump presidency, continue to function as genuine checks on national-security matters.

Western rearmament, the indispensable backdrop of the summit

Deterrence that must become permanent, not situational

The Ankara summit fits within a broader dynamic of Western rearmament launched since Russia's 2022 invasion. The 70 billion euros announced for Ukraine represent only a fraction of a global effort that must now become structural rather than reactive. NATO can no longer afford to operate in permanent crisis mode without ever building a durable defense industrial base.

The joint-production projects discussed in Ankara point in that direction: they aim to reduce the Alliance's dependence on fragile supply chains, an issue that has become glaring since the war in Ukraine exposed the limits of Western munitions stockpiles.

A lesson learned at too high a price

It took four years of war in Ukraine, hundreds of thousands of casualties, and a colossal economic bill for the West to finally accept what the Baltic and Polish states had been repeating for years: deterrence is built before the crisis, not during it.

China watches, Iran calculates, North Korea arms up

An authoritarian axis tracking every Western move in Ankara

This summit isn't only about Washington, Kyiv, and Moscow. Beijing, Tehran, and Pyongyang are watching closely how solid the Western response proves to be, because every sign of weakness or division within NATO feeds their own strategic calculations, whether on Taiwan, Iran's nuclear program, or North Korean ballistic provocations.

China remains, in this equation, the most structurally significant long-term threat to the West. Its indirect economic support for Russia, through trade and technology exchanges, allows Moscow to sustain its war effort despite Western sanctions. It's a fact too many Western commentators still downplay.

One lesson matters: Western cohesion deters

Every NATO summit that produces concrete commitments, like the one hoped for in Ankara, sends a clear signal to this authoritarian axis: the Western fatigue promised for years by Kremlin propagandists has not materialized.

What Ukraine concretely expects from this summit

Deliveries, not just promises

For Kyiv, the value of this summit will not be measured by speeches but by the actual delivery of air-defense systems, munitions, and military financing. Ukrainian officials have learned, over years of war, to tell spectacular announcements apart from commitments actually honored.

The 70 billion euros floated will have to translate into precise delivery schedules, or else they will remain a mere line in a final communiqué, like so many before them since 2022.

A legitimate expectation after four years of war

After more than four years of resistance, Ukraine has earned the right to demand clarity rather than vague diplomatic formulas. Every month of delayed deliveries translates concretely into civilian lives lost under Russian bombardment.

Lessons from the Turkish file for NATO unity

An unpredictable but indispensable ally

The Turkish case demonstrates an unavoidable reality of the Atlantic Alliance: it must work with members whose interests sometimes diverge without ever yielding on the fundamental principles of collective security. Ankara's stance on the S-400s illustrates this permanent tension between alliance solidarity and national sovereignty.

The potential compromise floated in several outlets — reselling the Russian systems to a third country rather than returning them to Moscow — shows that a diplomatic solution remains achievable without sacrificing American security requirements around F-35 technology.

An Alliance that must learn to manage its internal contradictions

NATO in 2026 is no longer the homogeneous Alliance of the Cold War. It must now manage members with radically different economic, political, and strategic profiles, while maintaining enough cohesion to face the Russian threat.

The weeks ahead: between hope and skepticism

A decisive fall for negotiations

After the Ankara summit, attention will shift to the follow-up on the Trump-Putin call announced for the coming days. Ukrainian officials remain cautious: nothing guarantees this diplomatic sequence will lead to concrete progress before fall, historically a pivotal period in the conflict given the winter energy stakes.

Skepticism remains the rule in Kyiv, where officials have learned not to overinterpret every American diplomatic gesture after several cycles of failed negotiations since the war began.

Strategic patience as the only realistic option

In this context, strategic patience remains the only reasonable stance for Ukraine and its Western allies: keep strengthening military capacity while staying open to any serious diplomatic progress, without ever lowering the guard.

Why this summit matters beyond Ukraine

A precedent for every threatened democracy

The outcome of the Ankara summit reaches far beyond the bilateral Russo-Ukrainian frame. It sets a precedent for every democracy facing territorial aggression, from Taiwan against China to the Baltic states against a potential future Russian escalation. A West able to sustain its support for Ukraine over time sends a credible deterrence message to every authoritarian regime tempted by expansionism.

Conversely, a gradual abandonment of the Ukrainian file, under the pretext of diplomatic or electoral fatigue, would validate the theory that Western democracies lack strategic staying power against patient, determined adversaries.

The West cannot afford another failure

This may be the most important lesson of this summit: in Ankara, the West is gambling a piece of its strategic credibility for decades to come, well beyond the Ukrainian file alone.

The human cost no one should forget

Numbers beyond diplomatic comprehension

While delegations negotiate in Ankara, a study cited by ABC News puts Ukrainian casualties since the start of the Russian invasion between 525,000 and 625,000, including 125,000 to 150,000 killed. These chilling figures remind us that every summit, every phone call, every official statement plays out against a backdrop of human carnage that diplomatic tables can never fully capture.

The city of Kostiantynivka, in Donetsk, illustrates this daily price: Ukrainian soldiers there are pushing back Russian assaults one at a time, in ruins turned into a permanent battlefield, while the world's cameras turn toward the plush halls of Ankara.

Never separate diplomacy from the ground

This may be the most dangerous trap of this kind of summit: letting people believe that high-level diplomacy moves forward independently of the daily sacrifice of Ukrainian soldiers and civilians. Both realities are inseparable, and no agreement signed in Ankara will be worth anything if it ignores the price paid on the ground by the Ukrainian army.

Every negotiation must be measured against this standard: how many additional lives will be spared if the deal holds, how many will be lost if it fails. That is the only metric that truly matters for the families of Kyiv, Kharkiv, and Donetsk.

Conclusion: between clear-eyed judgment and resolve

A pivotal moment demanding consistency

The Ankara summit, with its multiple bilateral meetings and its military-aid announcements, illustrates a simple truth: the war in Ukraine remains, in this summer of 2026, the primary credibility test for the Western security architecture. Trump, Zelensky, Erdogan, and al-Sharaa each embody a different facet of this pivotal moment, where personal calculations, national interests, and global geopolitical stakes intertwine.

Vigilance remains the only valid watchword

No summit, however ambitious, will end four years of war overnight. But every commitment kept, every delivery made, every diplomatic channel kept open brings Ukraine a little closer to a just peace rather than a disguised capitulation. That is the nuance that must guide our reading of the coming days in Ankara.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Columnist's transparency note

Who I am and my acknowledged biases

I sign this analysis as an engaged columnist, not a neutral reporter. My bias is clear: I support the Ukrainian resistance, I consider Volodymyr Zelensky a rare figure of political courage, and I believe the West must remain the strategic center of gravity of the free world against the axis formed by Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. On Donald Trump, my treatment varies by file: I credit his posture when it strengthens Western military deterrence, and I criticize it firmly when it touches his domestic excesses.

What I don't know, and my method

I don't claim to know the outcome of negotiations between Washington and Ankara over the F-35, nor the exact content of the calls between Trump and Putin. This analysis relies exclusively on verifiable, cited, and dated journalistic sources, with no invention or fabricated testimony. Where uncertainty remains, I flag it explicitly rather than speculating as if it were established fact.

Sources

Primary sources

CNBC — Trump to meet Ukraine's Zelenskyy and Syria's al-Sharaa at NATO summit, July 5, 2026

The Epoch Times — Trump to travel to Turkey for NATO summit: what to know, July 2026

Associated Press — Trump, NATO summit, Iran, Turkey, Erdogan, July 2026

Secondary sources

UNN — Trump to meet with Zelenskyy during NATO summit in Turkey, July 5, 2026

RTÉ — Trump-Putin-Zelensky calls, July 5, 2026

Foreign Policy — Angsty in Ankara, July 2, 2026

Boston Globe — Erdogan ties give Turkey edge at NATO summit, July 3, 2026

Wikipedia — 2026 Ankara NATO summit