REPORT: Zelensky in Brussels: The Diplomatic Battle to Keep Trump on Kyiv’s Side

A request that has been on the table for months

Amid the uncertainty surrounding the G7, one development stands out. On June 21, 2026, in an interview cited by the Kyiv Independent, Zelensky announced: “President Trump plans to ask U.S. defense companies to manufacture missiles for air defense systems under license in Europe and Ukraine.” This is a statement worth reading twice. Not “Trump has granted,” not “Trump has signed”—but “Trump plans to ask.” An important nuance. It remains an intention, but it is the first time the U.S. team has responded positively to this specific request.

The context of this request is crucial. On May 27, 2026, Zelensky had sent a personal letter to Trump, warning of a critical shortage of anti-missile systems. Zelensky wrote: “When it comes to defending against ballistic missiles, we rely almost exclusively on the United States.” The dependence is total, and the Patriot system remains the cornerstone of Ukraine’s ballistic missile defense. Yet the Ukrainians claim to have all the technical capabilities to manufacture Patriot missiles themselves—they lack only the U.S. licenses.

The Ramstein Summit Increases the Pressure

On June 18 in Brussels, during the Ramstein format, Zelensky outlined the stakes to representatives from more than fifty allied nations: “Putin is now banking on one thing: constant missile attacks. He has ballistic missiles. We need anti-ballistic capabilities.” He added: “By this winter, we should already be seeing concrete results from our joint work on anti-ballistic defense.” That same day, Kyiv and Berlin signed agreements on the development of joint anti-ballistic capabilities and the joint production of Termit ground-based robotic systems in Germany. Belgium also confirmed that it would deliver seven F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine by the end of 2026.

These concrete bilateral commitments, secured on the sidelines of the Ramstein summit, illustrate a reality that Zelensky understands well: when multilateral efforts stall due to U.S. hesitation, European bilateral agreements move forward. The alliance supporting Ukraine is fragmenting into networks of individual commitments—less spectacular than a comprehensive agreement, but just as effective on the ground.

The issue of missile manufacturing licenses strikes me as the most underestimated strategic challenge of recent weeks. If Ukraine can produce its own Patriot missiles on its own territory, it reduces its vital dependence on Washington. This isn’t just a matter of armaments—it’s a matter of industrial sovereignty. By agreeing to explore this option, Trump would be doing Ukraine an immense favor while also opening up a lucrative market for his own defense contractors. Everyone stands to gain. So why is it taking so long?

The Symbolic Walk of Three Presidents

On June 18, 2026, upon his arrival at the European Council building in Brussels, Volodymyr Zelensky was greeted by a highly symbolic scene: Presidents António Costa and Ursula von der Leyen joined him for a “walk of three,” which was photographed and broadcast around the world. This was not merely a matter of protocol—it was a message to Putin, according to the EU News website: “While Russia stands still, the West continues to move further east.” Costa stated, “All 27 member states are united in their support for Ukraine.”

This renewed unity is significant. It marks the end of an era: that of the Hungarian veto. Since Péter Magyar replaced Viktor Orbán as head of the Hungarian government, European Council conclusions can once again be adopted unanimously. On June 15, 2026, two days before the summit, the EU had formally opened accession negotiations with Ukraine—the first “Fundamentals” cluster, covering the rule of law, democratic institutions, and the fight against corruption. Costa called it “a historic week for Ukraine.”

Zelensky Wants to Speed Things Up, Europe Is Playing for Time

But Zelensky wanted more. In his speech to the European Council on June 18, 2026, he called for the opening of the five remaining clusters “as soon as possible” and even mentioned a “fast-track path to membership”—a concept he presented with measured self-deprecation: “I know not everyone likes it, but sorry, I’ve already written it, so I’m going to say it.” He added that “every democratic nation in Europe deserves to be a full member of the EU” and that Ukraine “has paid more than any other country for its right to be free, independent, and European.”

The summit’s conclusions remained vague. The final text “looks forward to the opening of the other clusters, in line with the merit-based approach”—a more cautious formulation than the draft conclusions, which had called for opening them “as soon as possible.” Von der Leyen nevertheless expressed hope “to open other clusters during the summer,” hinting at a possible “Terrific Tuesday” on July 14, 2026. Magyar, Hungary’s new prime minister, had meanwhile had all references to an accelerated timeline removed—showing that while Orbán is gone, the Hungarian brake has not entirely disappeared.

I understand Zelensky’s frustration regarding accession. His country has been fighting for its very existence for more than four years. He is asking to join the European club, and the response he gets is phrasing about a “merit-based approach,” as if this were an application to a university. Ukraine deserves better than this bureaucratic language. That said, I recognize that the EU cannot abandon its standards—the credibility of the European project depends on it. This is a real tension, not mere cynicism.

A Tightrope Walk

Throughout this diplomatic week, Zelensky has had to walk an extremely fine line: flattering Trump without giving him the impression that Ukraine owes him everything, highlighting the U.S. role without diminishing that of the Europeans, and suggesting that peace is possible without appearing weak in the face of Moscow. It is a balancing act that few leaders could pull off with such consistency.

The key to his strategy is to present Trump as the solution, not as an obstacle. By publicly stating that Trump “can accomplish this, essentially on his own,” Zelensky offers the U.S. president what he craves: the role of savior, deal-maker, and the one who can do what no one else can. At the same time, he reminds Trump that Putin “is not making any headway” and “is losing a lot of soldiers”—which implicitly suggests that the time is ripe for decisive U.S. pressure, and that Trump can “win” by standing firm.

The Question of U.S. Neutrality

Since the beginning of his term, Trump has presented himself as a “neutral mediator” between Kyiv and Moscow. Zelensky, however, categorically rejects this stance. He is asking Trump to act in Ukraine’s favor, not to remain neutral. According to The Guardian, Zelensky used the G7 meeting to convince Trump that Ukraine “was not retreating on the battlefield” and that Washington should act as a “mediator supporting Ukraine rather than merely relaying messages.” This is a fundamental distinction: a neutral mediator could propose Ukrainian territorial concessions, something Zelensky absolutely refuses to do.

Trump seemed receptive, at least at the time. He told reporters after their meeting: “Look, Russia should make a deal. I’ll do everything I can.” This isn’t a blank check for Ukraine, but it is a sign that the U.S. president isn’t preparing a Ukrainian capitulation disguised as a “peace agreement.” For now.

What I see in the Zelensky-Trump relationship is a constant dance in which each tries to manipulate the other without the other realizing it. Zelensky flatters Trump; Trump flatters his ego as a deal-maker; and in the end, Ukraine survives. It’s not a heartwarming story of solidarity among democracies. It’s brutal pragmatism. And frankly, under the current circumstances, that’s exactly what Ukraine needs.

The E3 Trio Back in Action

One of the most significant developments of this diplomatic week is the renewed strength of the E3 trio: France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. These three European powers have coordinated their efforts to push Trump to strengthen his support for Ukraine, while demanding a seat at the table in any future peace negotiations. Macron was explicit: “A successful negotiation is one in which Ukraine and Russia are present at the table, alongside the Europeans and the Americans.” The message to Washington is clear: Europe will not be excluded from the talks.

Merz, for his part, welcomed the G7 with measured but genuine enthusiasm, emphasizing “a new tone in transatlantic unity.” His presence and commitment stand in stark contrast to the doubts about European cohesion in recent years. In Brussels, discussions between Zelensky and Merz focused on defense support and industrial co-production agreements, notably the agreement on Termit systems. The German-Ukrainian relationship, long marked by Berlin’s hesitations under Scholz, seems to have gained new momentum under Chancellor Merz.

Allies Who Stand Firm Despite Everything

Zelensky also met with Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk in Brussels to discuss European integration and the challenges posed by Russian aggression. He also held talks with the prime ministers of Greece, Slovakia, and Poland on the sidelines of the European Council. Each bilateral meeting adds another thread to the web of political support. Even Péter Magyar, the new Hungarian prime minister, had a “brief conversation” with Zelensky in the summit hall—a sign that the Kyiv-Budapest relationship, long frosty under Orbán, may be thawing.

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Canada imposed new sanctions against 162 Russian individuals, entities, and vessels at the G7 summit. G7 leaders also agreed to intensify sanctions against Russia’s energy sector—gas and oil. The EU, for its part, is preparing its 21st sanctions package. In Brussels, the European Council took a historic step: it decided to extend sector-specific sanctions against Russia for 12 months instead of the usual six—“the first time such a decision has been made,” according to Costa’s spokesperson.

I note with some satisfaction that Europe is standing firm. We often hear that Europeans will grow weary, that they will abandon Ukraine out of political exhaustion. That’s not what I see. I see Merz signing industrial agreements, Von der Leyen pushing for accession, and Costa extending sanctions. It may not be fast enough or strong enough—but the momentum is there. And in a war of attrition, momentum matters.

Kyiv Under Bombardment During the Summits

While Zelensky was negotiating in Évian and Brussels, Russia continued its attacks. On June 15, 2026, the day before the G7 summit, Russian missiles struck the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra—the main cathedral of this iconic 11th-century monastery, a major spiritual center in Ukraine. This deliberate attack on a cultural and religious site sparked international outrage. It was against this backdrop that Zelensky appealed in Évian for more air defense capabilities.

On the night of June 20, Russian forces launched a missile attack on the city of Poltava, killing two people and wounding fourteen others—including six children. These attacks starkly illustrate the paradox Ukraine faces: its leaders are at the highest level of global diplomatic relations while its civilians are dying in nighttime strikes. Speaking from Brussels, Zelensky warned that Putin “will intensify missile and drone strikes” and called on Ukrainians to “use shelters.”

Ukraine’s response: striking at the heart of Moscow

Ukraine did not remain passive. On the night of June 18, Ukrainian drones struck the Moscow oil refinery in the Kapotnya district, about fifteen kilometers from the Kremlin—the largest attack on the Russian capital since the start of the full-scale war, according to Russian authorities themselves. Zelensky commented on the operation during the G7 summit: “All G7 members were aware of our operation in the Moscow Oblast, had seen its results, and supported Ukraine’s absolutely justified and appropriate responses.”

This attack is consistent with the logic Zelensky has been articulating for months: Ukraine’s long-range weapons are a “crucial element of pressure” on Putin. By striking the refineries that fuel the Russian war machine, Ukraine seeks to raise the cost of the war for Moscow. And by securing the G7’s tacit support for these operations, Zelensky is validating his strategy of deep strikes with his allies.

The strike on the Kapotnya refinery strikes a particular chord with me. It is not a civilian target—it is military-industrial infrastructure at the heart of the aggressor’s capital. And this is happening while Putin is firing missiles at Ukrainian cathedrals. The entire moral of this war lies in this contrast. Ukraine strikes what fuels the war. Russia strikes what symbolizes the soul of a people.

The first cluster, at last

On June 15, 2026, two days before the end of the G7 summit and three days before the European Council, the European Union formally opened accession negotiations with Ukraine on the first cluster, “Fundamentals.” This cluster covers the rule of law, judicial independence, media pluralism, the separation of powers, and the fight against corruption. For Ukraine, this is a major step forward—and recognition that its reforms are bearing fruit even in times of war.

Von der Leyen stated on June 12: “We are going to open the ‘Fundamentals’ cluster—the central pillar of the accession process. It covers the core values and principles upon which the EU is built, from the rule of law to strong democratic institutions.” This opening was made possible by an agreement between Kyiv and Budapest on the rights of the Hungarian minority in Ukraine—an issue that had been stalling the process for years. The Magyar-Zelensky agreement thus represents a bilateral diplomatic breakthrough with major European implications.

The goal: six clusters opened by the end of summer

In Brussels, Zelensky was explicit: he wants the remaining five clusters to be opened “in the coming weeks.” The European Commission considers all six clusters to have been technically ready since 2025 and that the technical preparatory work has been underway since March 2026. Von der Leyen referred to a “Terrific Tuesday” on July 14, when all clusters could theoretically be opened during the General Affairs Council.

But the political reality complicates matters. Magyar had any specific timeline removed from the final text, insisting on a “merit-based approach.” The Baltic states—Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—are pushing for maximum acceleration. Cyprus has said it is ready to open all clusters if the 27 member states agree. Merz, for his part, has put the brakes on: “These processes take time.” The European consensus on the pace remains fragmented, even if the direction is clear.

The debate over Ukraine’s accession to the EU sometimes leaves me with a sense of frustration that’s hard to contain. Ukraine has been at war for more than four years. It is reforming its judicial system while its judges flee the bombings. It is fighting corruption while its customs offices come under missile fire. And yet it is being asked to tick bureaucratic boxes as if this were an ordinary application. I understand the rules. I understand the principles. But there is something unsettling about this demand for normality directed at a country in an utterly abnormal situation.

The Impossible Financial Equation

During the G7 talks, President von der Leyen publicly noted that the EU has covered two-thirds of Ukraine’s financial needs through a 90-billion-euro loan, extending through the end of 2027. But the remaining third represents a 52-billion-dollar shortfall that G7 allies are struggling to fill. This issue was addressed during the three-hour discussions on Ukraine on June 16—but according to the Kyiv Independent, it did not result in any concrete additional commitments from leaders and was not included in the final communiqué.

Zelensky asked the European Council to release the first tranche of the EU’s financial support package for defense. He also called for the use of the 6 billion euros from the European Peace Facility. Von der Leyen assured him that payments scheduled for the following year could be brought forward if necessary. This offers some relief, but it does not resolve the issue of long-term funding for Ukraine’s defense—an issue that Zelensky described as “long-term financial guarantees for the Ukrainian military.”

The Strategy Behind the Winter Package

With chilling clarity, Zelensky articulated the dual logic of his strategy from Brussels: “We want to end this war before winter—through diplomacy and by putting pressure on Russia. But we understand who we’re dealing with. Putin means war.” He therefore simultaneously called for the terms of a negotiated peace AND laid out a contingency plan should the war continue: a “winter package” comprising gas, diesel, energy equipment, and at least 300 additional missiles.

This dual approach is not a contradiction—it is military-diplomatic planning. Ukraine cannot afford to stake everything on diplomacy and find itself without ammunition if it fails. Nor can it appear so belligerent that it alienates allies seeking a negotiated solution. Zelenskyy walks this tightrope every day, maintaining a precarious balance between the need for weapons and the promise of dialogue.

The figure of $52 billion in shortfall strikes me as a ticking time bomb. Ukraine is said to be solvent until 2027. That’s less than a year and a half from now. If the allies do not organize coordinated funding by then, Ukraine could find itself not militarily defeated, but financially cornered. This may be Putin’s calculation: not to win the war, but to exhaust the West’s ability to finance it. I find this scenario more plausible and more dangerous than any Russian military offensive.

Moscow watches, bombs, and sneers

While Zelensky attended one summit after another, Vladimir Putin did not accept a single invitation. Zelensky had suggested that the Russian president attend the G7 in person for direct talks—Moscow did not respond. Putin’s special envoy, Kirill Dmitriev, took to social media to criticize the Europeans throughout the summit, notably mocking the political situation of former British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. This is Moscow’s usual stance: ignoring multilateral forums while seeking to destabilize them through information operations.

The Kremlin reacted to the G7 discussions with a predictable line: its spokespeople claimed that the Europeans had “probably fed Trump a bunch of harmful ideas” during the summit. This attempt to sow discord between the United States and its European allies is a constant feature of Russian diplomacy—and it is precisely what Zelensky seeks to counter by maintaining as visible a Kyiv-Washington-Europe alliance as possible.

The economic war is intensifying

Beyond the bombs, pressure on the Russian economy is intensifying. The G7 reached a consensus to strengthen sanctions on Russia’s oil and gas sectors. The Iran deal signed in parallel has stabilized global energy markets, creating a window of opportunity to tighten sanctions on Russian oil without triggering a price shock for Western economies. The EU is preparing its 21st sanctions package, whose measures specifically target the “ghost fleet” of Russian oil tankers that are circumventing existing sanctions.

Zelensky himself has urged his partners to take action on this front: “Europe must fully commit to seamless sanctions, confiscation without exceptions, and funding for Ukraine.” This statement sums up his doctrine: economic pressure and military force are the two pillars of the same strategy. Depriving Putin of oil revenues means reducing his ability to finance the missiles falling on Poltava and Kyiv.

I’m not going to claim that sanctions have brought Putin to his knees—they haven’t done so in four years. But I believe they matter in the long run. The fleet of ghost oil tankers, the refineries burning, the markets closing—all of this creates cumulative pressure. Putin can hold out for a long time with a war economy. But he cannot hold out indefinitely if oil revenues continue to erode. Economic warfare isn’t spectacular. But it may be decisive.

Rutte as a Strategic Liaison

On June 17, following the G7 summit, Zelensky met in Brussels with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte to review the outcomes of the Evian summit. Zelensky emphasized the importance of the upcoming NATO summit in Ankara and thanked Rutte for his support, pledging to make the summit “productive for Ukraine’s defense.” The priority he identified: strengthening Ukraine’s defense capabilities and securing U.S. licenses for the production of anti-aircraft systems.

NATO remains a sensitive issue for Ukraine. Formal membership is off the table in the short term—the allies do not want to trigger Article 5 of an alliance that would immediately find itself at war with Russia. But Zelensky continues to advocate for gradual integration, concrete security guarantees, and full interoperability with Alliance forces. The Ankara summit will be another opportunity to make progress on these issues.

Kyiv’s Voice in Global Forums

What is striking about Zelensky’s tour this week in June is the scope of the forums to which he has been invited. The G7, Ramstein, the European Council, bilateral meetings with Merz, Tusk, the King of Belgium, and the NATO Secretary General—Ukraine is no longer a client state waiting at the door. It is a central player in European security, whose voice carries weight in the deliberations of the world’s most powerful organizations. This is a considerable diplomatic achievement, built not on the country’s wealth or size, but on its resilience and the quality of its leadership.

Zelensky also discussed with the European Council the upcoming Ukraine Recovery Conference in Gdańsk—a gathering dedicated to the country’s reconstruction. These reconstruction meetings, held in parallel with military discussions, paint a vision: Ukraine winning the war and rebuilding. This message of hope is essential for maintaining domestic morale and international commitment.

Ukraine’s diplomatic rise over the past four years is, in my view, one of the most remarkable phenomena in contemporary international politics. A country that has been invaded, stripped of territory, and put through an economic ordeal—and yet it is present at every table, listened to, respected, and invited. This is Zelensky’s personal hallmark, but it is also the hallmark of a people who have decided not to disappear.

Vance, the Dissenting Voice

Not everyone in the American camp is singing from the same hymn sheet. According to The Guardian, Vice President JD Vance has repeatedly stated that Ukraine is “doomed to lose” due to Russia’s superior recruitment capabilities. Vance embodies the isolationist wing of the MAGA movement, which views the conflict in Ukraine as unrelated to American interests. His presence at the summit—even if low-key—serves as a reminder that the Washington consensus on Ukraine is fragile and could shift rapidly if Trump were to change course.

These voices of doubt did not disappear with the signing of the G7 communiqué. They were temporarily silenced—or rather, incorporated into the mechanics of the Trump presidency, where the final decision rests with a single man whose moods fluctuate. This is precisely why Zelensky so carefully cultivates his personal relationship with Trump, bypassing institutions and advisors. He knows that in Washington’s current political landscape, Trump is both the threat and the shield.

Europe Faces Its Own Divisions

Within the EU, differences remain very real. Magyar blocked an accelerated timeline for Ukraine’s accession in the name of Hungarian interests. Merz is putting the brakes on the pace of opening the clusters. Debates over who should represent Europe in future peace talks have not yielded results—Finnish President Alexander Stubb declined a potential role as special envoy, arguing that this mission “should be led by the major powers, namely France, Germany, and the United Kingdom.” High Representative Kaja Kallas continues to work on a common European position, but consensus remains fragmented.

These divisions have not weakened concrete support for Ukraine at this stage—weapons continue to arrive, sanctions are being tightened, and bilateral agreements are being signed. But they create uncertainty about Europe’s ability to speak with one voice in any future peace negotiations. And in this context, Trump’s role as the ultimate arbiter—whether intended or not—is thereby reinforced.

European divisions worry me more than Vance’s statements. Vance is a political figure whose influence depends on Trump—if Trump supports Ukraine, Vance will follow suit or remain silent. But the European rifts—between Baltic hawks and German realists, between French ambitions and Hungarian caution—are structural. They will not disappear with a single summit. And a divided Europe will always be a less effective Europe for Kyiv.

Strategic gains, not a victory

Beyond all the diplomacy, the military reality remains Zelensky’s central argument. Ukraine has made “strategic gains on the battlefield in recent months,” according to the Kyiv Independent. These advances have shifted the nature of the discourse: Zelensky no longer speaks of avoiding defeat—he speaks of negotiating from a position of strength. German government sources have supported this assessment, stating that “Kyiv is now negotiating from a position of strength” and that “Russia cannot secure a victory on the battlefield and is under economic pressure.”

This is a significant reversal of the narrative. For months, some Western commentators spoke of an “exhausted” Ukraine that would have to accept a territorial settlement. Today, the dominant narrative in European capitals is different: Ukraine is holding its ground, Russia is suffering, and pressure must be maintained to bring Putin to the negotiating table in earnest. This shift in tone—which Merz hailed as “an acknowledgment by Trump that things have truly changed in Ukraine”—is a narrative victory for Zelensky.

The Battle of the Coming Winter

But Zelensky is also preparing for the worst-case scenario. If the war continues into the winter of 2026–2027, Ukraine will need a massive “winter package”: at least 300 missiles, gas, diesel, and energy equipment. Zelensky had already warned in 2024 that Russia would systematically target energy infrastructure to break the people’s resistance. In 2026, with the experience of two winters of war under extreme conditions, he is already building the coalitions necessary for his country’s survival this winter.

This is also why licenses to manufacture American missiles have become critically important. If Ukraine can manufacture missiles for its Patriot systems on its own, it will no longer be at the mercy of transatlantic delivery times. It can build up its own stockpiles. It can defend its cities without depending on the goodwill of a single U.S. administration whose positions shift with election cycles. This is a matter of long-term strategic survival.

I conclude this overview with a deep conviction: Ukraine is buying the time it may not have had. This is not yet victory. Nor is it perhaps the just peace that Zelensky is calling for. But it is something precious and rare in an asymmetric war against a nuclear empire: persistence. Ukraine is still here. Zelensky is still here. And as long as he is here, in the corridors of Brussels and Évian, persuading, flattering, demanding, and resisting—Ukraine will have a chance.

What Zelensky Gained

Looking back on this intense week, Zelensky has made concrete progress: the launch of the first EU accession cluster, a joint G7 statement of support for Ukraine signed by Trump, an unprecedented U.S. commitment to explore missile manufacturing licenses for Ukraine, bilateral German-Ukrainian agreements on ballistic missile defense, Belgium’s pledge of seven F-16s, and a historic extension of anti-Russian sanctions to twelve months. This is no small feat. In the shifting landscape of Western support, these milestones matter.

The first visit to Brussels since Orbán’s fall also carries strong symbolic weight. Ukraine is reconnecting with a united Europe—not unanimous on everything, not as swift as Kyiv would like, but united in principle. And in this critical period, when the temptation of a “Trump-style deal” looms over every meeting, maintaining this unity is a political goal in itself—one that Zelensky has skillfully advanced this week.

What Remains to Be Achieved

But the unresolved challenges are immense. The $52 billion budget shortfall has not been filled. NATO membership is not on the agenda. The timeline for opening the five remaining clusters has not been set. The peace talks lack an agreed-upon format. And Trump—the linchpin of Ukraine’s entire diplomatic strategy—remains an unpredictable player whose support today is not guaranteed tomorrow. Zelensky knows this. That is why he never stops. The next step is already planned, the next speech already prepared, the next summit already on his agenda—perhaps Ankara, perhaps Gdansk, perhaps both.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist