COLUMN: "Very Good Talks" — Trump at the G7, Diplomatic Theater Decoded Without the Fluff

Introduction: The Master Director Arrives in Évian

A Lake, Speeches, and a Ready-Made Phrase

It only takes a handful of words to measure the depth of a foreign policy. On June 17, 2026, leaving the G7 summit in Évian-les-Bains, Donald Trump told the press he had "very good talks" with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Russian leader Vladimir Putin. The phrase is so hollow, so generic, and so interchangeable that it could be applied to any exchange between heads of state for the last half-century. And yet, in Trump's mouth, these three words carry a precise meaning: the art of the vague as strategy.

The Évian-les-Bains summit, organized under the French presidency from June 15 to 17, 2026, was supposed to be a new test of Western solidarity. Zelensky was present at the invitation of Emmanuel Macron. Ukraine, at war for more than four years, needed strong signals. It received a few. But Trumpian staging once again stole the spotlight from concrete results.

The Mechanics of the Grand Presidential Show

Trump arrived in Évian as a self-proclaimed political victor. His big topic of the moment? The framework agreement with Iran, which he brandished as his latest diplomatic masterpiece. Ukraine was, in this order of priorities, almost a footnote. According to the Kyiv Independent, during his hour-long press conference at the end of the summit, Trump devoted less than two minutes to Ukraine — the rest of the time was absorbed by Iran, Iran, and more Iran.

This disproportion is, in itself, an entire program. It says something essential about the mental hierarchy of a man who leads the world's primary military power and yet approaches the deadliest war in Europe since 1945 as a secondary issue. Staging takes precedence over substance. The gesture takes precedence over the commitment. And the phrase "very good talks" becomes the perfect symbol of a façade diplomacy.

The Évian Summit: Sets, Lights, and Backstage

An Idyllic Setting for a High-Stakes Meeting

The choice of Évian-les-Bains, a spa town on the shores of Lake Geneva, was no accident. Macron, a great lover of symbols, wanted to offer a setting of European serenity and prestige. According to the Élysée, G7 leaders adopted no fewer than nine joint declarations during this summit. For Ukraine, the joint declaration reaffirmed "unwavering" support for the country's freedom, sovereignty, and territorial integrity — strong words on paper, but whose value depends entirely on the political will that accompanies them.

On June 16, the key day, Zelensky found himself sitting alongside Trump and Macron during a working session. It was their first face-to-face meeting in four months. According to the Brussels Signal, this trilateral meeting, initially unplanned, lasted about 30 minutes and delayed the start of the G7 plenary session. One gesture from Zelensky particularly caught the attention: the Ukrainian president showed Trump photographs of the destruction inflicted on the Kyiv Pechersk Lavra during a recent Russian strike. According to a source close to the meeting cited by the Kyiv Independent, the scene left the American president visibly disappointed.

Macron, the Master Orchestrator

If anyone deserves the title of the true director of the Évian summit, it is Emmanuel Macron. According to Ukrinform, which published a detailed analysis titled "How Macron Orchestrated the Évian Consensus," the French president achieved a tour de force: bringing Trump, at least politically, to "back into the camp of supporting Ukraine." Macron maneuvered so that Zelensky was present, that the Ukraine session was at the heart of the program, and that Trump signed a joint declaration with concrete commitments.

Macron was even caught on a hot mic admitting to Zelensky that he had had "difficult conversations with Trump regarding Ukraine." This involuntary frankness reveals the truth of the wings: convincing Trump to commit to Ukraine is never a given, never obvious, and always the result of intense and often exhausting diplomatic work. The "Évian moment", in Macron's own words, is a success — but a fragile, conditional success, dependent on the moods of a single man.

Zelensky: The Man Who Doesn't Ask for Charity, He Negotiates Survival

Arriving in Évian Without a Confirmed Appointment

One must measure what the presence of Volodymyr Zelensky in Évian represented. The man who leads a country under daily bombardment, whose soldiers have held front lines for more than four years, initially had no confirmed one-on-one with Trump. According to The Guardian, Zelensky arrived at the summit hoping to obtain a bilateral meeting, but it was not guaranteed. He finally got it — partly through Macron's mediation, partly by the force of his own presence.

His strategy in Évian was clear and pragmatic: demonstrate to Trump that Ukraine is not losing the war, that the dynamic on the ground has changed, and that the United States must act as a mediator supporting Kyiv rather than as a mere conveyor belt between the two sides. According to the G7 Independent, Zelensky informed G7 leaders that he was implementing changes in military compensation to ensure sustainable recruitment levels — evidence of serious strategic management, not a country in rout.

Images of the Lavra and the Pedagogy of Reality

The gesture of showing Trump the photos of the destruction of the Kyiv Pechersk Lavra is indicative of a Zelensky-esque method: making the war concrete, human, and irreducible to abstract formulas. The Pechersk Lavra is one of the most sacred Orthodox sites in Ukraine and Eastern Europe, an 11th-century monument that Russian missiles hit. When you place these images before a man accustomed to abstracting suffering as "tremendous losses on both sides," it is an act of courageous political pedagogy.

According to Ukrinform, Zelensky summarized the summit's priorities with unequivocal clarity: more air defense missiles, licenses to produce them, a winter support package, and intensified pressure on Russia. The Ukrainian president noted after the summit that, for the first time, the American team had responded positively to the question of production licenses — a potentially major breakthrough for the Ukrainian defense industry.

"Russia should make a deal": Five Words That Don't Equal a Policy

The Magic Formula and Its Limits

On June 16, during a bilateral meeting with the Emir of Qatar on the sidelines of the summit, Trump declared: "Look, Russia should make a deal. Russia's lost tremendous amounts of people, and so has Ukraine". The sentence traveled through global press rooms as a major declaration. In reality, it says nothing new and commits to nothing. Trump has been claiming that Russia should make peace for months — without ever setting conditions, deadlines, or concrete pressure mechanisms.

This is the rhetoric of diplomatic wishful thinking: one expresses a general preference, makes it a headline, and the next day the world continues as before. What Trump does not say in this formula: what are the consequences if Putin refuses? What additional sanctions? What arms deliveries? What concrete military support? The absence of answers to these questions transforms the declaration into simple rhetoric — one more element in the grand presidential theater of Évian.

The "Equidistant" Player Who Chooses His Side Without Saying It

The Kyiv Independent noted a revealing detail: during his final press conference, Trump presented himself as a neutral party in the conflict, distinguishing himself from the rest of the G7 table. "I think they both want to do something. They just don't know how," he said, grouping Zelensky and Putin into the same equidistant blur. This false symmetry is politically and morally untenable: on one side, an invaded country defending its sovereign territory; on the other, an autocratic regime conducting a war of aggression in violation of international law.

According to Ukrainian Pravda, Emmanuel Macron responded indirectly to this equidistance by stating that all G7 leaders agreed that the city of Russia showed no real will for peace. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, for his part, judged that "the US position on Ukraine is becoming more realistic" — a diplomatic formulation to say that Trump is evolving, slowly, in the right direction.

The Phone Call with Putin: What it Reveals About Trump's Priorities

Putin on the Presidential Line, Zelensky in the Waiting Room

Before even arriving in Évian, Trump had held a call of about an hour with Vladimir Putin on June 14 — the same day Zelensky wished him a happy birthday in a phone call. According to Politico, cited by Ukrinform, this call with the master of the Kremlin had sparked deep concern among European allies, who feared that Trump would once again push Ukraine toward territorial concessions. These fears were not unfounded: Trump has repeatedly stated his frustration at not being able to propose a deal that would include ceding territory not lost in combat.

During the summit, Trump "briefed" Zelensky on the content of this phone call with Putin. He explained to him that the Kremlin leader "wanted to do something but didn't know how." This formulation — which describes Putin as someone well-intentioned but clumsy — contrasts sharply with documented reality: Russia bombs Ukrainian cities daily, its drone forces strike civilian infrastructure, and its armies illegally occupy sovereign Ukrainian territories.

When Trump Thanks Putin for Iran

The most edifying detail of the summit came during the final press conference, reported by the Kyiv Independent. After barely mentioning Ukraine, Trump took the time to thanking Vladimir Putin publicly for his "neutrality" in the conflict with Iran. "I want to thank Vladimir Putin. He was very neutral. They could have made it a lot harder for us," Trump said. This is where the mask slips: in the hierarchy of Trumpian priorities, gratitude toward Putin for Iran surpasses indignation at war crimes in Ukraine.

This thank-you directly contradicts reports from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other officials indicating that Russia has provided both intelligence and weapons to Iran since the start of the conflict, helping Tehran target American military assets in the Middle East. Trump has systematically minimized this information. The G7 in Évian, in its carefully orchestrated staging, cannot mask this fundamental contradiction.

The Real Results of the G7: What Happened Despite the Theater

A Joint Declaration with Concrete Commitments

It would be unfair, and inaccurate, to reduce the Évian G7 to a pure empty spectacle. The joint declaration published on June 17 contains real and measurable commitments. G7 leaders reaffirmed their unwavering support for Ukraine and agreed to increase deliveries of air defenses — additional systems, interceptors, and long-range capabilities. They also declared themselves "ready to consider" granting Ukraine licenses to develop its own military production, a first within the G7 framework.

According to the Élysée, leaders also agreed to increase pressure on the Russian war economy, notably via sanctions on the oil and gas sectors — the main funding tap for Putin's military machine. Canadian Prime Minister Carney and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz both highlighted the unprecedented convergence observed between Trump and his European allies on these issues. The EU, for its part, is moving forward on its 21st sanctions package.

Four Billion Dollars and the Architecture of Support

Beyond the G7 strictly speaking, the week of June 15 to 21 was dense with concrete commitments. According to Ukrinform and the Kyiv Independent, following the meetings of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group and the European Council held shortly after, partners announced 4 billion dollars in new aid for Ukraine. Nine countries contributed to the PURL program for a total of nearly one billion dollars. A one-billion-dollar aid package for the supply of American weapons was also announced.

Zelensky summarized the week with characteristic sobriety: "We are coming home with new defense capabilities." No triumphalism, no grandiosity. The pragmatism of a head of state who knows that every billion, every weapon system, and every potential production license represents real lives on real front lines. Beside this, Trump's "very good talks" appear even hollower.

Trump's Grammar: Decoding a Sui Generis Diplomatic Lexicon

"Very good": The Universal Superlative That Says Nothing

In Donald Trump's diplomatic dictionary, the expression "very good" is a catch-all category. It can describe a conversation with a faithful ally or with an autocrat who bombs hospitals. It can precede a historic commitment or a declaration without a tomorrow. In Évian, Trump used the same adjectives — "very good," "very, very good" — to describe his conversation with Zelensky AND his conversation with Putin. This lexical equating of the victim of an aggression and their aggressor is not an accident of language: it is a calculated political posture.

According to Breitbart News, Trump told reporters at the G7: "Had very good talks with President Zelensky and with President Putin, and we'd like to see that one end. I ended eight wars, and to be honest with you, I thought this would have been one of the easier ones, but they're not liking each other too much." This last formulation — "they're not liking each other too much" — reduces four years of war, tens of thousands of deaths, and the destruction of entire cities to a matter of poor interpersonal chemistry between two leaders. It is staggering reductionism.

The "Deal-Maker" Facing the Complexity of History

Trump sees the world through the prism of his past as a businessman: every problem is a negotiation problem, every conflict is a dispute between two equally responsible parties, every deal is doable if you find the right formula. This reading grid is unsuited for the war in Ukraine, whose root causes are geopolitical, historical, and ideological. There is no "deal" possible that makes Russian aggression acceptable, any more than there could have been a "deal" that normalized the 1939 invasion of Poland.

According to The Guardian, Trump himself expressed his frustration at not being able to propose a deal including a cession of territory not lost in combat. This frustration reveals that deep down, he understands that Zelensky will not yield — and that Putin will not back down either. So he remains in the register of pious hopes: "Russia should make a deal." An incantation without an enforcement mechanism.

European Allies: Between Relief and Constant Vigilance

Macron, Starmer, Merz: A Coordinated Front

The Évian G7 revealed the state of a transatlantic relationship in permanent mutation. Emmanuel Macron, Keir Starmer, and Friedrich Merz formed a coordinated front to maintain pressure on Trump and Putin simultaneously. According to The Guardian, Zelensky and his European allies are realistic: immediate talks with Russia remain unlikely, but they hope that Trump's involvement could make them feasible by autumn.

This medium-term strategy rests on a bet: if Trump can be kept in the support camp for Ukraine — even ambiguously, even with hollow formulas — Russia will understand that Western aid will not stop. This is the logic Zelensky himself articulated after the summit: according to Ukrinform, the Ukrainian president indicated that Trump's position aimed to signal to Putin that aid wouldn't stop and that he should therefore consider ending the war.

The Request to Host Talks in the United States

One of the most significant requests formulated in Évian by European leaders is to accueillir des pourparlers aux États-Unis — inviting Trump to host Zelensky-Putin negotiations on American soil. According to The Guardian, this request reflects the European conviction that only Trump can bring Putin to the table — and that the prestige of a summit in Washington, under the White House seal, would change the Kremlin's calculations. Trump expressed his doubts about the "great antipathy" between the two leaders, without rejecting the idea nonetheless.

This cautious opening should be viewed alongside Russian appetites. Kirill Dmitriev, Putin's special envoy, did not wait for the end of the summit to post attacks on European leaders on social media, even mocking the political trajectory of British Prime Minister Starmer. This rhetorical aggressiveness from the Russian camp during G7 discussions says everything about Moscow's real readiness to negotiate.

The War Goes On: While Leaders Talk, Drones Strike

Moscow Refinery in Flames

While diplomats chatted in the salons of Évian, the war pursued its brutal and implacable course. On June 16, Zelensky confirmed that Ukrainian drones had provoked an incendie dans la plus grande raffinerie de pétrole de Moscou, located about 15 kilometers from the Kremlin and more than 480 kilometers from the Ukrainian borders. Zelensky called the strike a "réponse juste aux attaques russes et à la prolongation d'un conflit qui doit être résolu."

According to The Guardian, by announcing this strike from the G7, Zelensky sent a double message: to his Western allies, to show that Ukraine is capable of deep offensive actions on Russian territory; and to Putin, to demonstrate that the costs of war are not limited to Russian losses on the front lines. Ukraine, far from being on its knees, is conducting an increasingly sophisticated asymmetrical war — and the G7 recognized this "nouvelle dynamique" in its joint declaration.

Patriot Missiles and the Urgency of Air Defense

At the heart of the Évian discussions, the question of air defense occupied a central place. Ukraine faces waves of Russian missiles and drones that systematically target its energy infrastructure — power plants, transformers, distribution networks. Every winter since 2022, millions of Ukrainians have lived in darkness and cold because of these deliberate strikes on civilian targets.

According to Ukrinform, Zelensky stated after the summit: "We have all the technical capabilities to start producing missiles for Patriot systems. For that, we need licenses from the United States." Trump replied, according to Ukrinform, that the question would be "considered" — and according to the Kyiv Independent, he is planning to ask American defense companies to produce missiles under license in Ukraine and Europe. A still fragile promise, but an unprecedented positive signal.

Trump and l'Iran: When Zelensky Comes Second

The Memorandum with Tehran, the G7's Big Distraction

Trump's big business at the Évian G7 was not Ukraine. It was Iran. The American president arrived in France with a framework agreement with Tehran in his suitcase, which he intended to sign with fanfare. On June 17, during a dinner with Macron at the Palais de Versailles, Trump signed the memorandum of understanding with Iran under the spotlights — while Zelensky, departed for Brussels, was still waiting for a second bilateral meeting that never materialized.

According to the Kyiv Independent, a highly anticipated second one-on-one meeting between Trump and Zelensky did not happen. Instead, Trump devoted his final hours at Versailles to signing the memorandum with Tehran. This detail of chronology speaks louder than any speech: in Trump's mental hierarchy, a "deal" with Iran is worth more presidential time than a second meeting with the leader of a country under invasion.

"Iran in the Rearview" Is Not Enough

Trump had nevertheless promised, according to CNBC, that now that Iran was "in the rearview," he was going to focus his attention on Ukraine. This promise had the lifespan of a sunset over Lake Geneva. The June 17 press conference revealed that Évian remained, in Trump's mind, above all the summit of the Iranian deal — with Ukraine as a secondary topic benefiting from a window of less than two minutes in an hour of declarations.

European allies welcomed the US-Iran agreement on the Strait of Hormuz with relief, but without illusions about the consequences for Ukraine. According to an anonymous senior European official cited by the Kyiv Independent, "the deal on Iran allowed us to refocus attention on Ukraine" — implicitly admitting that Trump's attention remains a rare and capricious resource that must be constantly captured, oriented, and maintained.

JD Vance, the Threat in the Shadow of the G7

The Vice President Who Believes in Ukrainian Defeat

Behind Trump, there is JD Vance — and Vance is not Trump. Where Trump floats in calculated ambiguity, Vance has clear, documented, and dangerous convictions. According to The Guardian, the American Vice President has "repeatedly said that Ukraine was destined to lose the war due to Russia's superior recruitment capabilities." This is a political prediction disguised as military analysis — and a prophecy Vance seems to want to make self-fulfilling by limiting American support.

Vance was in Geneva during the Évian G7, finalizing negotiations with Iran. His physical absence from the summit does not remove his influence over American policy. European allies know that behind Trump's "very good talks", there is a Vance hardline that systematically pushes toward American disengagement from Ukraine. The fragile balance obtained in Évian is only ever one presidential decision away from a reversal.

The Russian Threat as Structural Context

To understand the Évian G7 is to understand the context in which it takes place: a Russia continues its war of aggression while manipulating Western divisions; a China that observes, calculates, and economically supports Moscow; an Iran whose agreement with Washington has temporarily reduced direct pressure on the mullahs' regime; a North Korea that feeds the Russian war machine with munitions and soldiers. The arc of authoritarian threats is real, coordinated, and patient.

Faced with this arc, the Évian G7 showed both the West's capacity to coordinate — the joint declaration on Russo-energy sanctions is proof — and its structural vulnerability to an American president whose attention is volatile. The "unwavering support for Ukraine" proclaimed in the final declaration is only worth as much as the acts that follow it.

Language as a Weapon: Trump, Master of the Empty Signifier

When Words Replace Deeds

There is a form of perverse genius in Trump's mastery of the empty signifier. A formula like "very good talks" is ideal for a man who wants to satisfy everyone without committing to anyone. It allows his isolationist supporters to hear that he is managing the situation without getting involved; it allows pro-Ukraine allies to interpret the "good" as a sign of support; it avoids any precision that could be contested or held as future responsibility.

This architecture of Trumpian diplomatic language is not new. We have seen it at every international crisis since 2017. What is new is that European allies have learned to use it in return: they cite these words as commitments, they write them into joint communiqués, they transform them into political obligations. According to Ukrinform, Macron himself described the "Évian moment" as a diplomatic success — largely because he succeeded in getting Trump to sign an engaging text, even if Trump himself might only see it as a public relations exercise.

What History Will Remember

In ten years, when historians analyze this sequence, they will note that the Évian G7 took place while Ukraine bombing the outskirts of Moscow, while Russia continued its strikes on Ukrainian civilian infrastructure, and while an American president described the two combatants with the same casual formula. They will also note that despite everything, the Western allies held — imperfectly, conditionally, but they held.

They might remember the gesture of Zelensky showing the photos of the Kyiv Lavra to Trump as the strongest human moment of a summit otherwise drowned in surface diplomacy. This gesture says: look at what Putin is destroying. This gesture asks: are you still capable of being touched by reality? For the moment, Trump seemed to be — for an instant, fleetingly, before returning to his formulas and his Iranian agenda.

The Question of Sanctions: The Economic Weapon Finally Drawn?

Russian Oil in the G7's Crosshairs

One of the most concrete results of the Évian G7 concerns sanctions on Russian oil and gas. Leaders committed to "strengthen sanctions, including those on the oil and gas sectors." In the current geopolitical context — where the US-Iran agreement on the Strait of Hormuz reduces pressure on global energy prices — this measure is all the more politically feasible. According to the joint declaration, it is "the right time to take additional measures" against Russia, now that Trump has secured the Iran deal.

According to Ukrainian Pravda, Trump himself "publicly repeated that he was considering restoring sanctions on Russian oil" after the temporary exemption introduced due to the energy price spike linked to the Iranian conflict. This is not yet a finalized decision — but it is a signal, and in Trump's world, signals count. If oil sanctions are indeed reinforced, they could dry up a significant portion of the funding for the Russian war effort.

The Russian Shadow Fleet in the Crosshairs

Zelensky also brought the issue of the Russian shadow fleet to Évian — those tankers that illegally transport Russian oil by bypassing existing sanctions. According to The Guardian, the Ukrainian president proposed additional pressure measures, including the "confiscation of the clandestine Russian oil fleet." This request is part of a broader strategy to dry up the Kremlin's financial resources — without which all diplomatic pressure remains largely symbolic.

The EU, for its part, is preparing its 21st sanctions package, which should include additional restrictions on liquefied natural gas tankers. The synchronization between the G7 summit, the EU's work, and Ukrainian diplomatic efforts represents, despite everything, a Western coordination that deserves to be recognized — even if it remains below what the situation would ideally require.

Conclusion: The Curtain Falls on Évian, the War Goes On

A Summit That Kept Its Minimum Promises

The Évian G7 will go down in history as a summit at a halfway point between theater and substance. Trump played the role of the omnipresent master negotiator without taking on binding commitments. Macron succeeded in orchestrating a fragile but real diplomatic convergence. Zelensky left with concrete promises — 4 billion dollars of new aid, reinforced commitments on air defense, a positive signal on missile production licenses, announced energy sanctions. For a country fighting for its survival, every gain counts.

But what will remain in the memories is the image of Trump describing his "very good talks" with Zelensky and Putin in the same breath — with the same adjective, the same casual tone, the same calculated equidistance. This formula is the symbol of an era where diplomatic spectacle often takes precedence over the reality of commitments. And while heads of state congratulate each other in Évian, in Moscow, missiles are being manufactured. In Kyiv, air raid shelters welcome families. On the front lines, Ukrainian soldiers hold their positions.

What "Very Good" Ought to Mean

"Very good" should mean: guaranteed deliveries of additional Patriot systems. Production licenses signed and sent to Raytheon within 30 days. Energy sanctions reinforced before autumn. Budgetary support filling the 52 billion dollar gap identified after the European loan. Real diplomatic pressure on Putin, measured not in words but in acts. A clear path toward negotiations that will not force Ukraine to capitulate on its sovereign territories.

"Very good" should not mean: a hollow formula pronounced during an hour-long press conference where Ukraine occupies two minutes, while we thank Putin for his Iranian neutrality and sign an agreement with Tehran in the gilded halls of Versailles. Ukraine deserves better than empty superlatives. It deserves the truth — and a West that acts at the level of its own declarations. It is the permanent test of our time.

Signed Maxime Marquette, columnist

Sources

Primary Sources

Ukrainian Pravda — Trump says after G7 summit that he had "very good talks" with Zelensky and Putin — June 17, 2026

The Kyiv Independent — Trump thanks Putin for Iran "neutrality", immediately challenging G7 claims of tone shift — June 17-18, 2026

Ukrinform — How Macron Orchestrated the Evian Consensus — June 21, 2026

Secondary Sources

The Guardian — European leaders urge Trump to host Zelenskyy-Putin talks — June 16, 2026

The Kyiv Independent — G7 leaders "ready to consider" extending military production licenses to Ukraine, agree to increase arms deliveries — June 17, 2026

Breitbart News — Trump to Breitbart News at G7: Had "Very Good Talks" with Zelensky, Putin — June 17, 2026

Al Jazeera — G7 leaders to boost Ukraine air defences, tighten sanctions on Russia — June 17, 2026

Ukrinform — Zelensky holds trilateral talks with Trump and Macron — June 18, 2026