Five key takeaways from Trump-Zelensky phone call

On March 19, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky held a telephone talk with US President Donald Trump, which lasted about an hour.

Ukrinform has engaged AI to compare the official readouts of the call issued by Kyiv and Washington.

Zelenskyy’s call with Trump marked the first official direct contact between the two leaders since a dramatic confrontation in the Oval Office late last month, after which the Ukrainian President and his team quickly left the White House.

During that meeting, Mr. Trump and Vice President JD Vance berated Mr. Zelensky for showing insufficient gratitude for American support — most of it delivered under President Joseph R. Biden Jr. The Trump administration temporarily suspended all military assistance and intelligence sharing with Ukraine in the aftermath of the meeting, and Mr. Zelensky has since sought to smooth over relations.

 Wednesday’s statements from Mr. Zelensky, Mr. Trump and his national security officials suggested that efforts to make amends had produced results.

Before proceeding to the analysis, it is worth paying attention to an interesting detail. We used artificial intelligence to compare the texts of the official statements issued by the White House and the Office of the President of Ukraine. The result showed that their contents are 75-80 percent identical.

We also analyzed the final statements from the White House and the Kremlin after Trump's phone conversation with Putin. Here, the level of coincidence is much lower at 50-60 percent. The Russian version highlights what is favorable to the Kremlin, while the American one is more restrained and diplomatic.

Here are the five takeaways from the Trump-Zelensky call that we found to be most notable.

First. The phone call was in stark contrast to the not-so-successful meeting between Zelensky and Trump in the Oval Office on February 28. The Ukrainian president called the conversation “the most substantive in recent times” and suggested that it could have lasted even longer if the leaders had not had other things to do.

Trump also positively assessed the conversation, calling it “very good”. In general, we can conclude that relations between Ukraine and the United States are gradually getting back on track. And this is an important step forward.

“The results of the talks are generally positive – the main fears did not come true. Events unfolded according to the following scenario: first, the Ukrainian delegation held successful negotiations with the United States in Jeddah. The ball is in the Kremlin’s court, which it did not like terribly much, because the paradigm of “Ukraine disrupting the negotiations” has broken down. Then follows a two-and-a-half-an hour phone call between Putin and Trump. The Russian dictator tried to buy time: he seemed to have agreed to everything, but with conditions that look like a way to drag out the process. He did not take any real steps, trying to throw the ball into the court of Ukraine and the United States,” comments Kyrylo Sazonov, Armed Forces of Ukraine officer and political analyst.

There were fears that Trump could use this to put additional pressure on Kyiv by presenting Zelensky with Kremlin’s ultimatums or freezing military aid again. But this did not happen.

“The conversation was constructive, covering a wide range of issues. An important signal is that the Trump team already clearly understands that Moscow is trying to manipulate the situation, using it for its own purposes,” the expert emphasized.

Second. The American side will continue defense-related intelligence sharing with the Ukrainian side, even despite the fact that Putin demanded that Trump end such support for Ukraine. Moreover, Putin demanded a "complete cessation of foreign military aid" to Kyiv. However, it seems that this "wish" of his will also remain unanswered.

Zelensky reported that during the conversation with Trump, he discussed the state of the Ukrainian air defenses and how it could be bolstered. The White House confirmed this request, noting that the President of Ukraine asked for additional Patriot interceptors and launchers. Trump responded by promising to “find them in Europe.” Some may skeptically note that a promise is not a guarantee. However, there is an important implication here: Trump could have either directly refused the request or not raised this topic at all. But he mentioned the possibility of transferring Patriots, which can be interpreted as a half-agreement. And this is important.

We recall that, against the background of the reduction in military aid to Ukraine, experts have repeatedly emphasized: Patriot interceptor missiles comprise the most critical component to American support to Ukraine. Why? Because Patriot is actually the only air defense weapon system capable of intercepting ballistic missiles the Russian Federation is using against Ukraine. Theoretically, Patriot could replace the Franco-Italian SAMP-T, but their number in the world is limited, while related missiles are produced in insufficient quantities.

Mykhailo Samus, director of the New Geopolitics Research Network, explains: “The paradox is that, at one time, Germany and Poland chose the Patriot as the core air defense system in the future European shield. Because of this, investments in the production of SAMP-T were insignificant, and currently there are not enough of these systems.”

Third. In a conversation with Trump, Zelensky agreed to halt strikes on Russian energy facilities. But he emphasized that in the event of a violation of the agreement by the enemy, Ukraine would not sit idly by, but would respond: “The response will be tit-for-tat.” The President also noted that Ukraine would compile a list of civilian and energy infrastructure facilities that should be protected from Russian strikes: “I told President Trump that it would be preferable for us to compile lists of facilities against which Russia’s long-range weapons cannot be used. This could include railways, ports. (…) If the US controls this together with us, then we will be able to control these things.”

Volodymyr Ohryzko, former Ukrainian Foreign Minister believes a clear definition of facilities off-limits to attacks to be a crucial first step.

“Russia only understands specific and tough messages. It will use each uncertainty or ambiguity in its own self-interest. That is why a tough, clear and time-limited policy towards Russia can yield tangible results,” the diplomat says.

Fourth. The telephone conversation between Trump and Zelensky touched on the repatriation of the Ukrainian children who were illegally deported to the Russian Federation. Trump promised to work closely with both warring parties to help these children return home, as per a statement from the White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt.

Diplomat Roman Bezsmertny spoke positively of this move: “It is obvious that specific numbers were mentioned during the conversation, and this is extremely important. Ukraine’s fundamental position is that, during all international negotiations, the issues of prisoners of war, civilians and abducted children should come to the fore.”

Fifth and finally. Regarding the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP), which is currently under Russian occupation. The President of Ukraine confirmed that the possibility of US participation in the restoration of the plant was discussed. At the same time, slightly different interpretations are coming from the US - in particular, with respect to the possibility of the United States taking control of this nuclear power plant. It is not yet clear what exactly is being discussed, but the issue is being actively elaborated at the expert level.

According to Serhiy Taran, a political analyst, the US running Ukrainian power plants could become a deterrence against Russian attacks. If American specialists are present at Ukrainian energy facilities, Russia may refrain from strikes.

“It would be nice if the Americans also sent their own means of security protection, preferably in the form of air defense systems,” Taran suggested.

Serhiy Fursa, a finance analyst, emphasizes that the restoration of the ZNPP as part of the Ukrainian energy system is a key aspect. Today, the plant does not generate electricity for Ukraine, which creates a power shortage, noticeable especially in the summer.

“Even if under American management the plant will operate for the Ukrainian energy system, it will be more profitable than the current situation. The main thing is for us to generate electricity into our system,” the expert comments.

Volodymyr Omelchenko, director of energy programs at the Razumkov Center thinktank, believes that Ukraine should use each opportunity to get the ZaNPP back under its control. Therefore, Trump’s proposal may be useful if the United States helps Ukraine regain control over the plant not only legally, but also “factually”.

“The transfer of a share of ownership to American companies is possible provided that the White House ensures the return of the ZaNPP to full legal control of Ukraine, together with the city of Enerhodar and the adjacent territory,” Omelchenko says.

At the same time, the analyst emphasizes that Energoatom will remain the operator of the ZNPP, since no American company has a sufficient number of specialists capable of servicing Ukrainian nuclear power units.

“Indeed, in order to implement this proposal, it is necessary to amend the legislation and agree on the share of the American side. However, for Ukraine, this option is much better than keeping the plant (inoperative, - ed.) under Russian control. In any case, the rules of operation will be determined by the Ukrainian authorities, and the ZaNPP will work for Ukrainian consumers and pay taxes to our budget,” Omelchenko emphasized.

A ban on electricity supplies from the ZaNPP to the Ukrainian regions currently under Russian control remains an important issue.

Ihor Reiterovych, a political scientist, warns that the situation may have serious geopolitical implications. He sees a risk in the fact that the US running the ZaNPP may lead to the plant working for the benefit of not only Ukraine, but also other parties.

“If the ZaNPP returns back under Ukrainian control, while at the same time being under American management during the Trump administration, there is a risk that the plant will work to benefit the interests of not only the United States, but also Russia,” the expert warns.

Reiterovych also highlights the fact of Russia remaining silent on this issue, which is indicative in itself. That said, the Russian Federation cannot integrate the ZaNPP into its energy system, since it remains technically connected to Ukraine’s. At the same time, the Russians are laying power lines to the station, indicating their intentions to use its resources.

“If the station is run by American management, guided by business interests, the risk of the generated power being transmitted to the occupied territories will increase. This issue requires special attention and thorough analysis,” Mr Reiterovych said, summing up the issue.

Myroslav Liskovych. Kyiv