Mr. Trump, Don't Let Ankara Become a Summit for Nothing

Introduction: a meeting that can change everything, or nothing at all

Mr. President, history is watching you again

Mr. Trump, in a few hours you will sit across from Volodymyr Zelensky in Ankara, on the sidelines of the NATO summit. The White House has confirmed you will meet Wednesday afternoon with the Ukrainian president as well as Syrian president Ahmed al-Sharaa, at a time when your administration is seeking breakthroughs on two of the most explosive conflicts on the planet. I write you this open letter not as an adversary, but as a demanding observer who has watched your contradictions repeat themselves for years on this Ukrainian file.

This meeting comes more than four and a half years after the start of the Russian invasion, a war your own advisers describe as "grinding" and nearly stalemated. You have said, according to a senior American official quoted anonymously, that ending this war has long been a priority for you. I want to believe you, Mr. President, but I also want to remind you what happened the last time you and President Zelensky found yourselves in the same room.

Why this letter, and why now

I choose the open letter format because this moment calls for a direct address, without diplomatic detours. You have, Mr. Trump, a real opportunity to shape the course of this war at a pivotal moment, especially since you must then continue your exchanges with Russian president Vladimir Putin. What you do with this meeting in Ankara will carry consequences far beyond a simple photo op.

I don't claim to know the exact content of your private discussions with President Zelensky. But I know a pivotal moment when I see one, and this is one: either you consolidate real pressure on Moscow, or you repeat the communication failures that have already strained this essential alliance.

What the Oval Office of February 2025 taught us

A public humiliation that left its mark

Mr. President, allow me to remind you of a moment many Ukrainians haven't forgotten: your verbal clash with President Zelensky in the Oval Office, in February 2025, where you told him he didn't hold the "cards" to win this war. That line, spoken in front of cameras watched around the world, landed as a public repudiation of a leader defending his country against an illegal invasion for more than four years.

I understand that diplomacy sometimes requires firmness, even toward one's own allies. But there is a fundamental difference between demanding concrete results and publicly humiliating a head of state who has lost tens of thousands of his countrymen in combat.

What you owe Zelensky today

Since that episode, you and President Zelensky have met in a more constructive context, notably at the G7 summit in France this past June, where you agreed together to intensify pressure on Russia. That is the tone, Mr. President, I hope to see you strike again in Ankara, not the tone of the Oval Office.

I credit your administration for having, since that episode, restored a more functional dialogue with Kyiv. But trust that broke publicly in the Oval Office doesn't mend with a single good meeting at the G7. It demands consistency, summit after summit.

The July 4 phone calls, a symbol not to squander

Two leaders, one symbolic day

You spoke by phone with President Zelensky and with President Putin on the same day, July 4, marking the 250th anniversary of American independence. That diplomatic parallel escaped no one: you maintain open lines with both sides of this conflict, a posture that can be read either as skillful pragmatism or as a dangerous moral equivalence between an aggressor and its victim.

I'll say it to you directly, Mr. President: talking to Putin to seek a negotiated resolution is legitimate. But that must never translate into disproportionate pressure on Kyiv to accept territorial concessions that would reward Russian aggression rather than punish it.

What the post-Ankara period must clarify

After your meeting with Zelensky, you are expected, according to available reports, to follow up with Putin. It's precisely this sequence that worries me: what will you tell the Russian president after meeting his Ukrainian counterpart? Will you faithfully relay Kyiv's positions, or will you seek a compromise that prizes the speed of a deal over its fairness?

This shuttle diplomacy between Kyiv and Moscow can produce results, I won't deny that. But it carries a real risk: that the search for a quick deal takes precedence over the need for a just settlement for Ukraine, which remains the aggrieved party in this conflict.

The meeting with al-Sharaa, another test of consistency

Syria, a parallel but revealing file

Your meeting with Syrian president Ahmed al-Sharaa in Ankara also deserves close scrutiny. You have, according to several reports, repeatedly suggested that Damascus could become militarily involved in Lebanon, where Israel and Hezbollah remain locked in confrontation. President al-Sharaa, whom you welcomed at the White House in 2025, himself denied in June seeking military involvement, favoring instead economic channels between the two countries.

This gap between your public statements and those of the Syrian president illustrates a pattern I find too often in your regional diplomacy: bold announcements that sometimes outrun the reality of your counterparts' actual positions on the ground.

Lebanon's justified historical caution

Syria militarily dominated its Lebanese neighbor for decades, from its intervention in the civil war of 1975 to 1990 until its forced withdrawal in 2005. Any new Syrian military involvement in Lebanon, even under a new post-Assad government, would remain a highly perilous proposition for regional stability, and I urge you to exercise the same caution on this file as on Ukraine.

I note with some unease your tendency to publicly float military scenarios before your direct counterparts have even confirmed them. On a file as sensitive as post-conflict Lebanon, this rhetorical haste can do more harm than good.

What NATO really expects from you in Ankara

The summit's broader context

This meeting with Zelensky is not happening in a vacuum: it takes place within the framework of the NATO summit in Ankara, where you have already made clear you will demand allies honor the defense spending commitments made last year in The Hague. On this front, Mr. President, I must give you credit: your insistence on burden-sharing within the alliance has produced measurable results.

Several European countries have significantly increased their defense budgets since 2022, a shift that your diplomatic pressure, however rough at times, has undeniably accelerated. That's something I gladly acknowledge, even as I remain critical of other aspects of your foreign policy.

Aid to Ukraine must not become a bargaining chip

But this same push for budgetary discipline must never become a pretext to reduce concrete military support for Ukraine. Several European NATO members, along with Canada, have committed to sustaining long-term aid to Kyiv, a commitment your administration must continue to support rather than undermine with ambiguous messaging.

Here is where I give you the benefit of the doubt, Mr. President: on the strictly military and budgetary front within NATO, your firmness has produced concrete results that even your harshest critics must acknowledge. It's on consistency toward Ukraine that doubt persists.

The weight of your own contradictions

Between military firmness and diplomatic ambiguity

Mr. Trump, your record on this Ukrainian file is one of stark contrasts. On one hand, your administration has pushed NATO toward a more robust posture of deterrence against Russia, with defense spending commitments unprecedented in the alliance's recent history. On the other, your direct and regular exchanges with Putin fuel legitimate concern among your European partners and among Ukrainians themselves.

This duality isn't necessarily incoherent in itself: diplomacy sometimes requires talking to adversaries while reinforcing one's deterrent posture. But it also demands a transparency your public communications don't always sufficiently provide.

What clarity would require of you

I ask you, Mr. President, to use this meeting in Ankara to publicly clarify your position: do you support a negotiated peace that preserves Ukrainian territorial integrity, or are you prepared to accept significant territorial concessions to speed up a deal with Moscow? This lingering ambiguity damages the credibility of your diplomacy as much as it erodes the trust of your allies.

I believe many of your European partners, even those closest to you ideologically, have been waiting for this clarification for months. Strategic ambiguity has its tactical virtues, but it also carries a cumulative political cost when stretched out too long.

Russia is watching, so is China

A message sent far beyond Ukraine

Mr. President, what's at stake in Ankara extends well beyond the Ukrainian file alone. How you treat President Zelensky, publicly and privately, sends a message to every power watching closely for the reliability of Western commitments: China, which closely monitors the strength of American support for Taiwan, North Korea, which regularly tests the limits of international tolerance, and Iran, still recovering from February's war.

Each of these regimes draws lessons from how the West treats its allies in difficulty. A hesitant or contradictory posture toward Ukraine would send a dangerous signal far beyond European borders.

Western consistency as the best deterrent

This may be the most important argument I can make to you in this letter: Western consistency toward Ukraine isn't just a moral question, it's a strategic deterrence tool against every hostile regime watching closely for our cracks.

I sincerely believe the best deterrence the West can offer its adversaries isn't only military, it's also symbolic: showing that we never abandon an ally fighting for its survival. That's the message I hope you'll carry to Ankara.

What history will remember of this summit

A moment that will make the history books

Mr. Trump, whether you like it or not, this meeting in Ankara will feature in the historical accounts of this war, alongside the major diplomatic encounters that have marked this conflict since 2022. History will remember not only the words you speak, but also the tone, the posture, and above all the concrete actions that follow this ceremonial handshake.

You have, at this stage of your second term, the chance to turn a media moment into a real diplomatic breakthrough, or to let it slip away as just another photo sequence with no lasting substance.

My final appeal

I ask you, Mr. President, to treat President Zelensky with the respect owed to a leader who has defended his country for more than four years, and to use your real leverage over Putin to extract substantial concessions, not the reverse. That is the true test of your leadership in Ankara.

I close this letter with the hope, perhaps naive, that you will choose consistency over theatrics. But the recent history of your diplomacy also urges me to remain cautious before declaring victory too soon.

What Europeans are watching with concern

Still-fragile trust in Washington

Several European capitals are following this meeting with a mix of hope and apprehension. Since the start of your second term, your European allies have had to quickly adjust to sometimes contradictory messages about the American commitment to the continent's collective defense, notably after the announcement of a partial withdrawal of American troops followed, weeks later, by reinforcements in Poland.

This perceived instability in the American posture is fueling discussions, still tentative but real, about the need for Europe to strengthen its strategic autonomy, independent of the long-term perceived reliability of Washington.

A still-distant European autonomy

Despite these stirrings of strategic independence, the reality remains that most European countries stay heavily dependent on American capabilities for their defense against a large-scale attack. This structural dependence makes the clarity you must provide, Mr. President, about your true intentions toward the Atlantic alliance all the more critical.

This lingering European dependence on American military capabilities is neither shameful nor inevitable, but it places a particular responsibility on your administration: never weaponizing that dependence for diplomatic leverage.

The weight of the Hague summit, one year on

A promise kept by European allies

A year ago, Mr. President, you returned from The Hague with a collective NATO commitment to raise defense spending to 5% of gross domestic product within a decade. The Ankara summit represents, according to several analysts quoted by the Associated Press, the first real progress report on that commitment. Most alliance countries have indeed accelerated their military spending since that meeting, a result few of your predecessors at the White House managed to achieve so quickly.

This budgetary progress, I must honestly acknowledge, concretely strengthens the alliance's collective ability to deter further Russian aggression, whether against Ukraine or against a NATO member state itself.

A test of mutual credibility

But this budgetary pressure placed on your European allies must be matched by clear reciprocity on your part: maintaining a stable American commitment to collective defense, rather than contradictory announcements about withdrawing or reinforcing American troops in Europe, of the kind that have already sown confusion among your partners.

I give you this credit without hesitation: the acceleration of European defense budgets since The Hague is a tangible success of your firmness-based diplomacy. But the credibility of an alliance is measured on both sides, and Washington must also keep its word.

What Kyiv hopes to hear on Wednesday

Guarantees more concrete than words

According to several European diplomatic sources, Kyiv hopes to get far more from this meeting than statements of principle. The Ukrainian government is seeking concrete commitments on continued weapons deliveries, on maintaining sanctions against Moscow, and on a clear American position ruling out any recognition of territories annexed by force.

These expectations aren't unreasonable, Mr. President. They simply reflect the legitimate demand of a country that has paid a considerable human and economic price to defend principles the West itself claims to want to preserve: territorial sovereignty and the rejection of armed conquest.

Fear of a deal rushed through

The greatest fear expressed by Ukrainian officials, according to several recent reports, remains that of a negotiated deal rushed between Washington and Moscow, without adequate consultation of Kyiv. This fear, Mr. President, you have the power to dispel as early as Wednesday, simply by publicly reaffirming that Ukraine will remain at the center of any negotiation concerning it.

Nothing would be more destructive to transatlantic trust than a deal negotiated over the heads of Ukrainians themselves. I sincerely hope you avoid that pitfall, Mr. President, even if the recent history of your diplomacy offers no full guarantee.

Erdogan's role, host and intermediary

A host playing his own game

The choice of Ankara as the venue for this summit is no accident. Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan, whom you consider a close friend according to several reports, has insisted this summit must emphasize the alliance's unity and resilience. Turkey occupies a uniquely strategic position, controlling access between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea through straits governed by the Montreux Convention.

This geographic position makes Turkey an indispensable player in any Western containment strategy against Russia, which partly explains why you maintain such a close relationship with President Erdogan, despite recurring tensions between Turkey and other NATO members like Greece.

A delicate diplomatic balance

Your planned bilateral meeting with President Erdogan, alongside the one with Zelensky, illustrates well the complexity of the balancing act you must manage simultaneously in Ankara: reassuring a sometimes unpredictable Turkish ally, supporting a Ukrainian ally at war, and managing an ambiguous relationship with the Russian aggressor.

This three-way diplomatic juggling act, with Erdogan, Zelensky, and indirectly Putin, sums up rather well the challenge of your presidency on this file: too many conflicting interests to manage at once for a single summit to resolve it all.

The memory of Ukrainian sacrifice

A people not asking for charity

Mr. Trump, I remind you that Ukraine is not asking for Western charity, it is asking for consistency from allies who share, at least in principle, a common commitment to state sovereignty and the rejection of territorial conquest by force. Since February 2022, hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers and civilians have paid with their lives or their physical wellbeing for this defense, a sacrifice few European nations have known on such a scale since World War II.

This sacrifice deserves more than ceremonial recognition at an international summit. It deserves a Western commitment as steady as the Ukrainian resistance itself has been since this invasion began.

The symbol Zelensky continues to embody

President Zelensky has become, despite himself, a global symbol of democratic resistance against authoritarian aggression. That status should never be treated as a mere protocol footnote in a diplomatic meeting, but as a constant reminder of what the West claims to have defended for decades: the freedom of peoples to choose their own destiny, without foreign interference imposed by force.

I say it without hesitation: Volodymyr Zelensky will remain, whatever happens in the months ahead, one of the most courageous political figures of our time. That's not flattery, it's a judgment grounded in four and a half years of resistance against a nuclear power determined to erase his country from the map.

What Western diplomacy must avoid at all costs

The trap of strategic fatigue

After more than four years of war, a real risk looms over Western democracies: strategic fatigue, the temptation to push for a quick deal simply to close the book on a conflict weighing on budgets and Western political attention. This fatigue, should it shape your discussions in Ankara, Mr. President, would directly serve the interests of Moscow, which is betting precisely on Western exhaustion to gain through patience what it couldn't win by force.

This is exactly the trap President Putin hopes will close around your Western allies, a bet on patience rather than direct military victory.

Refusing fatigue rather than succumbing to it

Refusing this strategic fatigue demands constant vigilance from every Western leader, yourself included, Mr. President. It's a long-haul effort, undoubtedly costlier in the short term, but infinitely less costly than the consequences of a surrender dressed up as a peace deal.

The worst mistake the West could make at this stage of the war would be to confuse political exhaustion with moral necessity. These are two different things, and I hope your administration can tell them apart clearly in Ankara.

Conclusion: the ultimate test of Ankara

An opportunity not to waste

Mr. Trump, this open letter is not an indictment, it is a call for consistency. You have shown, on the military and budgetary front within NATO, a real ability to get concrete results from your allies. It's time to apply that same firmness, but this time aimed at Moscow, not at Kyiv.

Wednesday's meeting in Ankara can become a positive turning point in a war that has dragged on for far too long, or just another chapter in a pile of accumulated contradictions. The choice, Mr. President, is entirely yours.

I end this letter as I began it, with the same honesty: I don't know what you will decide in Ankara, and neither does anyone else but you. But I know history will judge this meeting by a single measure, the consistency between your words of military firmness and your actions toward an ally fighting for its survival.

A final word for Kyiv

And to you, President Zelensky, I want to say that the admiration your resistance has inspired for more than four years remains intact, whatever diplomatic turbulence these international meetings bring. Your country deserves a just peace, not a peace imposed in the rush of a summit.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Columnist's transparency note

Who I am and my limits

I am a columnist and geopolitical analyst, not a diplomat or policy adviser. This open letter reflects my critical interpretation of events reported by international press agencies concerning the planned meeting in Ankara. I had no access to any private conversation between the leaders mentioned in this piece.

My acknowledged bias is clear: I consider President Zelensky a leader who deserves the West's unwavering support, and I approach Donald Trump's diplomacy with a nuanced view, crediting his military firmness within NATO while remaining critical of his ambiguities toward Ukraine.

My method for this letter

This piece draws on press agency reports published in early July 2026 concerning the planned meeting in Ankara, as well as on widely documented historical facts, such as the Oval Office clash of February 2025. No quote attributed to any leader was invented for the purposes of this letter.

Sources

Primary sources

The Straits Times — Trump to meet leaders of Ukraine, Syria alongside NATO summit, July 6, 2026

Ideal and Partners — NATO Summit Ankara 2026

Secondary sources

Reuters — NATO leaders gather in Ankara aiming to smooth over tensions with Trump, July 3, 2026

Deutsche Welle — NATO summit: European members and Canada pledge long-term Ukraine aid

NATO — Overview: 2026 NATO Summit in Ankara

Reuters — Turkey's Erdogan says NATO summit must emphasise unity, resilience, June 29, 2026