King Charles helped sway Trump on Ukraine, Zelensky aide says

Ukraine’s presidential administration on Wednesday signaled that King Charles played a pivotal role in shaping Donald Trump’s reversal on Ukraine policy during the former U.S. president’s state visit to Britain, saying the monarch’s discussions with Trump were “very important” to the change in stance. Andriy Yermak, the head of Zelenskyy’s office, cited the royal visit as a catalyst, even as he emphasized that the overall outcome involved multiple interlocutors, including Prime Minister Keir Starmer and other figures Trump met in Britain.

Trump’s comments in New York in the days that followed his Windsor visit marked a stark departure from his earlier position that Ukraine would need to cede territory to Russia for a lasting peace. After meeting Zelensky at the United Nations General Assembly, Trump posted on Truth Social that Ukraine, with European Union and NATO support, could regain its original borders. He characterised Russia as a “paper tiger” and argued that a capable military power should be able to win the conflict quickly. The shift comes amid a broader strategic toll of the war, including questions about Kyiv’s ability to reclaim territory and the extent of Western support.

In Windsor, Charles hosted Trump at a state banquet in St George’s Hall and, in remarks during the occasion, drew a link between past and present threats to Europe. The king recalled that “in two world wars, we fought together to defeat the forces of tyranny” and said that today, with “tyranny” threatening Europe again, Britain and its allies stand with Ukraine to deter aggression and secure peace. Trump, who has cultivated a reputation for bold shifts in policy, praised the king as “a very, very special man” during his dinner speech and thanked him for hospitality.

Zelenskyy’s chief of staff framed the visit as a coordinated diplomatic effort that helped influence Trump’s thinking, while noting that the wider political context included the Trump administration’s consideration of NATO assistance and weapons supplies for Ukraine. Yermak also highlighted the roles of Prime Minister Starmer and others who met Trump during the trip, suggesting a collaborative effort rather than a single figure driving policy.

The Kremlin responded swiftly to Trump’s apparent U-turn, arguing that Russia’s economy is capable of sustaining its military and that Ukraine would not be able to reclaim any of the territory Russia has captured. Moscow’s assessment appeared aimed at dispelling the prospect of a rapid Ukrainian victory, even as fighting persists across multiple fronts.

Analysts cautioned that even with rhetoric shifting toward renewed Ukrainian focus, the material realities of the war remain daunting. A former British Army intelligence officer noted that while Ukraine faces a “mammoth task” in pushing back Russian forces, a combination of military pressure and geopolitical dynamics could gradually tilt the balance, should Russia’s ability to sustain its war effort waver. He also pointed to Kyiv’s ongoing efforts to disrupt Russia’s oil and gas industries, which could constrain Moscow’s defense production over time.

Ukraine remains under international pressure to sustain its counteroffensive and to secure continued Western support. Roughly three years into the full-scale invasion, Russia continues to occupy about 19 percent of Ukrainian territory, including Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Luhansk and Donetsk regions, following Moscow’s 2014 annexation of Crimea. The battlefield remains fluid, with ongoing combat, drone activity, and airspace tensions complicating regional security. The latest developments underscore how symbolic state visits and high-level diplomacy can intersect with war planning and public messaging on the global stage, even as the fighting on the ground evolves day by day.