Trump Says He Spoke to Putin Again; Warns of “Very Big Consequences” if Leaders Don’t Meet

President Donald Trump told reporters on Monday that he has spoken again with Russian President Vladimir Putin following a high-profile flurry of diplomacy this month and reiterated his push for a face-to-face meeting between Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy — while also warning that there would be “very big consequences” if Russia refuses to negotiate. The president said that “every conversation I have with him is a good conversation,” but added that he becomes “very angry” when strikes continue against Ukrainian cities after those talks.

Where the diplomacy stands

The comments come after a week in which Trump hosted Zelenskyy and several European leaders at the White House, and — in a widely reported moment — paused a meeting to phone Putin as part of efforts to arrange a future summit between the two wartime leaders. The White House has publicly said Putin indicated a willingness to meet Zelenskyy; Moscow has so far been noncommittal. Russian officials have insisted that no meeting is scheduled and have reiterated Moscow’s long-standing demands tied to any negotiation.

Trump told reporters he believes one reason a meeting has not yet been set is personal animosity between the two leaders. “He doesn’t like him,” the president said of Putin’s reluctance to meet Zelenskyy. At the same time, Trump warned of consequences if Moscow refuses to come to the table.

Russian actions and U.S. reaction

The president’s expressions of frustration follow continued Russian strikes on Ukrainian cities even as U.S. officials and European partners press for diplomacy. Trump said he has admonished Putin over those attacks while continuing to pursue talks; U.S. and allied officials say Russian military actions and Moscow’s preconditions for any meeting complicate efforts to secure a negotiated settlement. Reuters and other outlets have reported that Kremlin demands in recent briefings include territory-related concessions and limits on Western military presence — conditions Kyiv rejects as unacceptable. 

Moscow’s public posture

Russian state and diplomatic sources this week pushed back on U.S. characterizations, saying Putin has not agreed to a meeting and insisting that Moscow’s conditions must be addressed before face-to-face talks. That public distancing by Kremlin spokespeople undercuts the White House’s more optimistic readouts and underscores the uncertainty around whether direct talks between Putin and Zelenskyy can be arranged in the near term. 

Why it matters

A summit between Putin and Zelenskyy — if it happened — would be momentous: it could either open a path to negotiated settlement terms or be used by Moscow to extract concessions. For Kyiv and its European backers, the preconditions Moscow appears to demand (territorial and security-related) are non-starters. For Washington, success would be a diplomatic win after more than three years of grinding war; failure or a public rebuff could weaken U.S. leverage and raise political pressure at home and among allies. 

Analysis

Factually, the record through Aug. 26, 2025 shows: (1) Trump has held multiple direct contacts with Putin this month and publicly discussed arrangements for a potential Putin–Zelenskyy meeting; (2) the White House at times has presented a more optimistic account of Russian willingness than Kremlin spokespeople have confirmed; and (3) Russian military strikes have continued throughout these exchanges. Those three facts together create a credibility gap that is the central story: diplomacy conducted in parallel with battlefield attacks makes any negotiated pause fragile and raises questions about Moscow’s intentions. 

Politically, Trump’s posture mixes transactional optimism with sharp public admonitions — a strategy that can generate short-term headlines and the appearance of active peacemaking, but that faces two structural limits. First, Moscow’s public and private demands (as reported by multiple outlets) indicate it seeks tangible gains that Kyiv and much of Europe reject. Second, even if a symbolic summit is arranged, the absence of agreed security guarantees and enforceable verification would make any deal vulnerable to renewal of hostilities. In short: high-profile summits can move the needle, but without durable, multilateral guarantees and credible enforcement mechanisms, any “peace” risks being provisional. 

What to watch next

• Whether Moscow or Kyiv provide concrete confirmations (dates, venue, negotiating terms) for any bilateral summit.

• Whether the White House or European partners publish a clear package of security guarantees or commitments that would underpin a credible settlement.

• Continued patterns of strikes on Ukrainian population centers — if attacks persist, they will further erode trust and complicate any fast-track diplomacy.