Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Trump Meeting with Zelenskyy, European Leaders. Aired 3:30-4p ET

Aired August 18, 2025 - 15:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[15:30:00]

CEDRIC LEIGHTON (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: You actually have to consider in this situation the heat there were been several assassination attempts against Zelenskyy. Putin would not, you know, stop at that and it would be one of those things where it would be very critical for the U.S. to have a hand in this to make sure that any type of process becomes a fair process so that the Ukrainians can really may not only maintain their sovereignty but maintain their system of government and protect their leadership.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Cedric and Kim, Evelyn and Jim, thank you so much to all of you for the analysis we really appreciate it.

We'll have more on the potential for a possible meeting between Zelenskyy and Putin. We'll be speaking with a Ukrainian parliament member for her reaction on that.

Stay with CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:35:00]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Breaking news to CNN. Right now President Trump is hosting a meeting with leaders of some of Europe's most powerful nations at the White House. They're presenting a united front of support for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in his effort to end Russia's unprovoked invasion, which has been raging in Ukraine for more than three years now.

Zelenskyy called today's meeting with the President his best so far. At one point, Trump making news when he didn't rule out sending U.S. troops into Ukraine as part of security guarantees.

Joining us now to discuss is Ukrainian Parliament member Kyra Rudik. Ms. Rudik, thanks so much for being with us. I wonder what you make of what you've seen from the White House today.

KIRA RUDIK, UKRAINIAN PARLIAMENT MEMBER: Hello Boris and thank you so much for having me. This is progress and this is something that brings lots of hope to Ukraine, to here on the ground. We understand that this is probably as far as anybody ever have gone towards bringing peace to Ukraine. As we have said, step one to bringing peace is security guarantees. And not the virtual one, but the real one that can be practically executed. And the ones that Ukrainian people will accept and will believe.

So we do not know the details as of right now, but we know that these practicalities are being discussed between President Trump and European leaders. And we just really hope that this step one could be cemented, agreed on, and that we can move forward with getting the ceasefire on the ground and potential meeting with President Zelenskyy and dictator Putin.

SANCHEZ: You mentioned having security guarantees that are credible, that would lead to deterrence against Putin and the Kremlin. I wonder if you could give us more of the criteria for what you would like to see. Would you want to see U.S. troops on the ground or NATO troops on the ground in Ukraine?

RUDIK: So as it was discussed that NATO troops with the name NATO troops will not be present on the ground. However, certain European countries are ready to go ahead and put these troops on the ground in Ukraine. We, of course, would want to have certain troops on the ground, but only as a part of a bigger picture.

And the most important part of the security guarantees is strong Ukraine and strong Ukrainian army. So that would mean, first of all, arming us with the wide-range weapons that would suit as a certain deterrence against Russia.

Second, it could be protecting Ukraine's sky. That has been a massive problem, and even right now, Russia is attacking us with ballistic missiles and drones that we simply cannot take down with 100 percent certainty. So the support in that matter would be crucial. Of course, understanding that if Russia would attack us again, that we will receive additional support from our partners is crucial.

But because here on the ground, there is like certain distrust to anything that is just international agreement, we need to start with the proper arming of Ukraine, and the rest will come as addition to that.

SANCHEZ: You mentioned distrust of international agreements, and it's certainly a valid point, given that Vladimir Putin has torn up previous agreements to not go into Ukraine. I wonder what you make of the idea of an Article 5-like agreement, something like what NATO has, that would ensure that if Ukraine is attacked by Russia in the future, a group of nations would move to defend it. Would you be in favor of having that in place?

RUDIK: That would be a good idea, but it cannot come separately again from the current military support. Here in Ukraine, we have trauma of the Budapest Memorandum, that was also signed by the countries that are right now in the Oval Office talking to President Trump. So we know that the Budapest Memorandum was never honored, and people here on the ground would certainly ask how this new agreement is different from the agreement that was signed back in 1994. This is why it needs to come all together with the army of Ukraine right now and having an international agreement in the future.

[15:40:00]

SANCHEZ: I also wonder, Ms. Rudik, about the potential for land, territory to be handed to Russia. Up until today, I had not heard President Zelenskyy say that he would be open to that, and he didn't really answer a question about potentially redrawing maps in order to achieve peace.

A recent poll showed that some 75 percent of Ukrainians are against ceding any territory to Putin, and of course it's part of Ukrainian law that there would be a public referendum in order for that to even take place. I wonder whether you agree with the idea that borders may need to be redrawn in order to guarantee peace and get those security guarantees that you're speaking of.

RUDIK: No, of course we are not supporting any re-drawings of the borders. First, because it is against Ukrainian constitution, and second, because for us it is very emotional. For every inch of Ukrainian territory that we are holding onto right now, we have paid an ultimate price.

And for us to give it up would mean that Ukraine is giving up on the lives that we have lost for it, and the price that we have paid. So it will be, I would say, politically almost impossible to go ahead with it, and Ukrainian people would not accept it at all.

So I think what can be feasible, and what President Zelenskyy already has said, is freezing the conflict with the security guarantees alongside the current line -- alongside the current frontline.

However, this is something that I believe is being discussed right now. What is important is that even if for some reason President Zelenskyy may be pressured into agreeing to something like that, which I don't believe that would happen, it still, again, will need to go through a complicated process in Ukrainian constitution, which starts from the step one, which is ceasefire. And I hope that the meeting in the White House is rolled back from the future to a current situation where Putin continues attacking our cities, and we need to just pressure him into stopping these attacks, because the longer ceasefire is opening up the next steps into the potential peace negotiation, peace deal.

SANCHEZ: All right, Kira Rudik, we have to leave the conversation there. Very much appreciate you sharing your perspective.

RUDIK: Thank you.

SANCHEZ: Still to come, much more on this historic summit inside the White House. We're back with more on CNN NEWS CENTRAL in just a moment.

[15:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: We're continuing to follow breaking news.

President Trump meeting with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy and European leaders right now in the East Room at the White House. Trump focused on securing a peace deal with Russia following his meeting with Vladimir Putin on Friday.

KEILAR: And here with us now to talk about it is Marc Short. He served as White House Legislative Affairs Director during the first Trump administration. He was also the former Chief of Staff to Vice President Mike Pence. He's currently the Board Chair for Advancing American Freedom.

What did you think, Marc, of these events that you saw today? And then that meeting we saw with the world leaders in their own little way, pressuring President Trump to take steps that he sort of pulled back from?

MARC SHORT, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF TO VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: Well, look, I think we don't -- there's a lot we don't know at this point. I think it is good that the President is convening this sort of a meeting. And I think it's good for Zelenskyy to have his allies at the table for the President to hear from as well.

I think it's important that we step back and remember, again, who the one who's initiated this conflict was, Putin. And he's violated every agreement since he attained leadership in Russia. And I think that he's looked to reassemble the old Soviet Union.

And so we've talked a lot about, you know, what sort of concessions would Ukraine make. And I think if you're Ukraine, you got to be wondering, why are we talking about the ones needing to give up concessions at this point? In 1994, there was an agreement between Russia, the United States, and Ukraine that in exchange for them as the old Soviet Union collapsed, in exchange for them giving up their nuclear weapons, that there would be security agreements to protect the integrity of their territorial lines, and that Putin would respect them.

He has not respected them. He's seized territory during the Obama administration in Crimea. He's seized territory in the Biden administration.

And so I think there's a lot of questions about what sort of guarantees would you have to suggest that Putin would not do it again.

SANCHEZ: Notably, though, President Trump seems to have put the ball in Zelenskyy's court by saying that you've got to give up Crimea, any claim to Crimea, and that essentially you can't join NATO, even though there might be some Article 5-like agreement in place. We don't really know what that means at this point. Why do you think Trump is so focused on getting concessions, on dictating concessions to Zelenskyy, but not really doing that with Putin?

SHORT: I think he's looking to get a deal, obviously, Boris. I think that, again, we all want peace, but it's peace at what price. I'm not familiar with when Russia got to dictate who could join NATO.

And so I think that, again, it's a major concession to be able to basically allow Putin to dictate the terms of who is actually going to be allowed to join NATO.

[15:50:00]

And again, to have to basically, it's this continual aggression of taking pieces of Ukraine piece by piece and then breaking additional deals. So why would this one necessarily stick?

I don't know why we aren't taking a position instead of basically arming Ukraine to defend themselves. No one's talking about sending American troops. But give them the resources. Everybody said that when Russia invaded Ukraine three and a half years ago, it would be a matter of hours before they could basically capture all of Ukraine.

It's three and a half years later. And so they've never really actually had the weapons they need to defend themselves. Let's allow them to defend themselves.

KEILAR: They've had an amazing will --

SHORT: They have.

KEILAR: -- to defend themselves. As the president looks at how he's approaching this, and, you know, initially he was saying I'd get a peace so quickly, I'd get it in 24 hours.

He wants peace. He's clearly maneuvering for a peace prize and he would like that. But as he's looking for this and he wants to move definitively towards peace, how does he have to think about other countries looking at what he's doing and how he's approaching this as they and, you know, not involved in this conflict, have to worry about what it means for them in future conflicts?

SHORT: That's a great question. I think you have to be concerned about what is China witnessing as they watch this and their interest in Taiwan. So there's a lot of other impact.

I think the president doesn't have to go far to learn. Look at his first administration. His first administration, he denied Nord Stream 2. He eliminated over 100 Russian mercenaries in Syria when they overstepped. He had serious sanctions on Russia. He had peace.

If you want to attain peace, it showed that peace came through strength in his first administration, not through appeasement.

SANCHEZ: We were just speaking with Ambassador John Bolton, who I think you ran into in the Green Room a moment ago, and he was talking about how the MAGA base might respond to the idea that the U.S. is going to provide security guarantees, the sort of backstop that's been described multiple times. The president has expressed skepticism up until today about having U.S. troops in Ukraine. He's outright denied that that would happen, but today he didn't negate the idea altogether. Is that a sign of anything, or is he just being diplomatic?

SHORT: It's a great question, Boris, because I would be surprised and shocked to see actually American troops be provided as part of a security agreement. Again, even the most hard line against Russia, not advocating sending American troops to Ukraine, they've just argued to allow Ukraine to have the weapons to defend itself.

KEILAR: There have been troops training Ukrainian -- American troops training Ukrainian forces in the past, and obviously there's still an alliance. But isn't that something that could be an ultimate deterrent to Vladimir Putin?

SHORT: Yes. Again, I think there's a marked difference between the first administration and the second one. I think the first administration, he had advisers who were pretty united in their approach to Russia.

I think this administration, there's a lot of division about how we should approach the engagement with Russia. Some that are more appeased in an isolationist, some that want to maintain a hard line. I think that Russia's shown that when you actually present strength, that Putin backs down.

When he senses weakness, he advances.

SANCHEZ: A more broad-looking question, given that you just noted the differences in the two administrations, and now the differing viewpoints in the White House, not only about the approach to Russia, but about investment overseas in other nations' security. What does it say about the Republican Party and conservatism, this sort of shift over time to a more Trump, unilateral, America First view?

SHORT: Well, I don't think there's any doubt that he's captured the party at this point, Boris. And I think that there's a lot of support for him personally. And I think that there's a lot that Republicans, looking at what he achieved in the first administration, want to give him a lot of latitude.

But I think there's also been a shift inside the party on a lot of these decisions when it comes to foreign policy. We've talked on your show many times as well about the shift economically, and far more intervention in the economy, as opposed to a more laissez-faire approach. And so he's definitely having a huge impact on the party.

There are many who still, I think, want to revert back to the America's Strength broad message outside the party, but they don't want to go aside of the president. And so I think there's some that are just reluctant to have that encounter.

SANCHEZ: Marc Short, great to get your point of view. Thanks for joining us.

SHORT: Thanks. Appreciate it.

SANCHEZ: Stay with CNN for much more of our coverage of today's historic summit at the White House. We're going to take a quick break. We'll be back in a few minutes.

[15:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: Now to some of the other headlines we're watching this hour.

Forecasters are warning that Hurricane Erin has the potential to become even larger over the next few days. The storm became one of the fastest-strengthening Atlantic hurricanes on record when it exploded from a Category 1 storm to a powerful Category 5 just 24 hours later.

And as we watch it turn through the Atlantic this week, the system could double or even triple in size. The storm, fortunately, not expected to hit the U.S., but it is expected to bring life-threatening surf and rip currents to the East Coast.

KEILAR: Texas Democrats are ending their exile, and they have returned to Austin. The Statehouse reconvened today, and next it may advance a controversial congressional map that favors Republicans. Shortly after the House was gaveled into session, Speaker Dustin Burroughs ordered the doors locked and said Democrats who'd fled the state would be released into the custody of a designated Department of Public Safety officer, a move designed to ensure they will be on hand when the House reconvenes on Wednesday.

And arguments just wrapped in federal court over whether detainees at the Florida Detention Center dubbed Alligator Alcatraz have been denied their legal rights.

[16:00:00]

This is the second lawsuit that alleges officials at the controversial facility have blocked detainees from communicating with legal counsel. Attorneys with the ACLU said they are fighting to keep the facility from becoming a black hole where detainees disappear without representation.

The DHS denies those allegations. The judge said he would rule as soon as possible.

And a very eventful day today, President Zelenskyy at the White House.

SANCHEZ: Yes, certainly, and a phone call soon to be expected going from Donald Trump to Vladimir Putin. Whenever that meeting wraps, you've got you covered with the latest.

"THE ARENA" with Kasie Hunt starts right now.

END