Zelensky told where a meeting with Putin and Trump can take place

The United States is reportedly working to organize a potential trilateral meeting involving the presidents of Ukraine, Russia, and the United States. The U.S. has proposed holding this meeting in a Middle Eastern country, specifically mentioning the United Arab Emirates or Saudi Arabia, as an alternative location. Another possibility discussed is holding negotiations in the United States during the G20 summit. There is also mention of potential meetings in European countries, with contacts reportedly underway among European nations regarding this issue.
Zelenskyy stated that Ukraine is prepared to negotiate in any format—trilateral, bilateral, multilateral, or involving five or more parties—with representatives of Donald Trump's administration, emphasizing that the primary goal is peace. Zelenskyy indicated readiness to meet with the American side as early as the following week and noted that the American negotiating track will continue. He also mentioned separate discussions planned with Türkiye regarding sea and food security and with Middle Eastern representatives.

* The United States is working on organizing a trilateral meeting involving the presidents of Ukraine, Russia, and the United States.
* The U.S. has a proposal to hold this meeting in one of the Middle Eastern countries, mentioning the United Arab Emirates or Saudi Arabia.
* Another possible option for negotiations is holding meetings in the United States during the G20 summit.
* A third possibility is holding the meeting in one of the European countries.
* Ukraine is ready to negotiate in any format: trilateral, bilateral, multilateral, or with five or more parties.
* Zelenskyy stated that the American side has signaled readiness for a meeting next week.
* The process for negotiations with the American side will continue.
* Separate discussions are planned with Türkiye regarding sea and food security and Middle Eastern representatives.

The reported focus on multiple potential venues—Middle East, the US during G20, or Europe—suggests a strategy of maximizing flexibility while managing geopolitical sensitivities. The emphasis placed by Zelenskyy on the principle of peace above all formats reflects an attempt to frame the negotiation around a shared objective rather than procedural deadlock, positioning Ukraine as the central actor capable of defining terms. The ambiguity regarding confirmation from Russia or the US regarding the proposed meetings introduces significant uncertainty, which can be leveraged by actors seeking to manage the perception of imminent action.
The pivot toward inclusive formats (trilateral, bilateral, multilateral) demonstrates a desire to build broader support rather than relying on singular power dynamics, reflecting a necessary response to the fragmented nature of current international relations. The narrative of continuing negotiation tracks, irrespective of immediate confirmation, serves to maintain momentum and project agency. However, the need for external validation from Russia or the US, as noted by Zelenskyy, underscores the reality that political action remains contingent on the wills of other primary actors. Furthermore, the stated intention to pursue avenues through separate tracks (with Türkiye, the Middle East) suggests a multipronged approach where no single channel is deemed sufficient or fully reliable for achieving a resolution.
What structures are in place to ensure that the emphasis on flexible negotiation formats does not become an exercise in stalling? How do actors balance projecting readiness with maintaining leverage when key partners have not yet confirmed their involvement? What specific metrics will define success across these diverse potential meeting scenarios?