The situation in Ukraine is hitting a deciding point, and the stakes couldn’t be higher for both the region and President Trump’s leadership on the world stage. As President Volodymyr Zelensky arrives in Washington to discuss a possible settlement, he’s signaling that his nation refuses to give up any more territory to its powerful neighbor. Yet there’s no denying that a real resolution could rest on a compromise that includes territorial concessions. Many in Europe seem hesitant about endorsing any plan that surrenders more Ukrainian property to Moscow, but America’s commander in chief is intent on forging a quick deal. Some find it shocking that Zelensky clings to his constitutional view of indivisible borders while meeting President Trump, who wants real movement toward stopping the bloodshed now, not later.

Hostilities began well over a decade ago with Russia’s initial seizure of Crimea and part of the Donbas. Zelensky himself has pointed out that Russia simply used that land grab as a platform for further assaults. But the White House is clearly pivoting: President Trump once demanded a cease-fire before negotiations, yet he recently softened that stance and even discussed new frameworks with President Putin in Alaska. At the same time, Trump’s willingness to push forward without a prior truce isn’t just a negotiation trick. He wants to demonstrate that Washington can drive peace by bypassing Europe’s paralyzing indecision.

Ukraine, for its part, is welcoming deeper security guarantees, but it’s anyone’s guess what form those might take. Observers discuss a possible deployment of international forces to keep the peace, maybe from a “coalition of the willing.” In practice, that might mean a large contingent strong enough to deter any more cross-border moves. Or it might consist of fewer soldiers, strictly to serve as a symbolic line in the sand—one the Kremlin would pay dearly to cross. President Trump hasn’t committed our nation’s troops to such a scenario. Nevertheless, he’s part of a conversation about forging an enduring stability for Europe, which has grown weary and anxious over this prolonged crisis.

Critics accuse President Trump of showing too much flexibility toward the Russians. They claim allowing territorial concessions chips at the principle that no land should be sliced off a sovereign nation. On the other hand, this conflict has raged for years. Where’s the urgency from our European allies who love drafting statements but shy away from hard decisions? President Trump isn’t afraid to upend stale attitudes. He recognizes that endless fighting hurts families, drains resources, and potentially spreads chaos beyond Ukraine’s borders. Better an imperfect deal, he might argue, than an unending war.

For Ukrainians, any arrangement implies living with the painful memory that the Crimean Peninsula and large chunks of their east have been under another flag for years. Zelensky’s stance against the ceding of more territory might complicate attempts to find a deal that satisfies the Kremlin, but the writing is on the wall that Washington wants real movement now. When the White House and the Kremlin last sat down, the message was clear: a swift agreement on borders and security could reduce overall tensions, especially if it averts more conflict. European leaders appear torn, questioning whether the administration got played by the Russians.

Yet you can’t ignore that in America’s capital, the push is for progress. Zelensky’s repeated calls for unwavering support might be met with conditions. He can protest 2014 as a cautionary tale all he wants, but President Trump is more interested in locking down a definitive outcome. This administration thrives on finality, while the old world order dithers with bureaucratic niceties.

Whatever the shape of “lasting peace,” Zelensky’s readiness to stand firm on territory will be tested. The White House is eyeing an end to this drawn-out saga, and if Zelensky doesn’t adapt, he could find that Washington’s patience has limits. The question is whether Ukraine, with Europe at its side, would risk losing American goodwill by maintaining an all-or-nothing stance. As the negotiations in Washington unfold, we’ll soon see if talk of “lasting peace” is as solid as it sounds—or just another speech in a conflict that never ends.