The recent informal summit between US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, which was held in Rome on the eve of Pope Francis funeral, opens the way to a necessary reflection on the dynamics of peace in Ukraine and the role of Western powers in the process. Although the meeting was brief and unplanned, it raises many questions as to the possibility of a peaceful resolution of the conflict that has been lasting for several years now.
In the light of Trump’s statements, the tension that continues between Russia and Ukraine is all the more felt. After meeting Zelensky, Trump expressed doubts about the peaceful intentions of Vladimir Putin, which raises the question of a real commitment on the part of Russia in the search for a solution. Trump’s declaration, evoking potential sanctions against Russia, testifies to the complexity of current international relations and the need to reassess the diplomatic strategies in place. What could encourage Moscow to change their approach? Does the prospect of additional sanctions constitute an effective way to encourage peace, or is it likely to make relationships further?
Zelensky, in an attempt to rationalize tensions, stressed the importance of a “complete and unconditional ceasefire”, while saying that he is open to dialogue. This indicates a desire to clear the ground for significant talks. Indeed, the war in Ukraine has caused tragic human losses and a deterioration of daily living conditions for many people. The question of the protection of civilians and the eradication of violence becomes essential. Why, then, it seems so difficult to reach a consensus on a cessation of hostilities?
An analysis of the previous and peaceful and enlightening this questioning. Past failures, often due to unacceptable prerequisites or to misunderstandings between the parties, show the need for a collaborative and measured approach. It is imperative that international actors, including the United States, the European Union and other regional partners, work together to promote an environment where constructive dialogues can occur.
The meeting in Rome also highlights the symbolic role that major international institutions and universal reach events, such as the funeral of a religious leader, can play in diplomacy. This moment of gathering allowed interactions between leaders who, otherwise, could have stayed at a distance. Could it be that an environment of shared vulnerability during tragic events promotes more authentic exchanges and peace initiatives?
In this context, it is good to wonder how managers can draw from these moments of convergence to establish fundamental dialogues and avoid the repetition of past conflictual patterns. Will the desire to initiate a deeper and sincere dialogue, not only between Zelensky and Trump, but also between the great powers, could it lead to significant advances in the resolution of the conflict? The clarity of objectives as well as transparency in the current negotiations will be essential for any future initiative.
In short, the Trump-Zelensky meeting in Rome, although Ephemere, offers an opportunity window to consider new tracks in the quest for peace. The situation in Ukraine, deeply rooted in historical, political and strategic issues, requires constant attention and vigilance on the part of international actors. A collective desire for dialogue, listening and understanding seems to be the key to hoping for a future where dialogue replaces the conflict. This path will not be simple, but it may be the only one that can lead to lasting and authentic peace.