Washington DC — The stakes are high for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

On Monday, Zelenskyy is scheduled to attend a high-stakes meeting at the White House with US President Donald Trump, supported by a number of European leaders, to discuss ending the Russia-Ukraine war.

Should talks falter, the US may cease mediation or military support, potentially enabling Russia to escalate its military actions within Ukraine.

Zelenskyy, to avoid America's wrath, may concede territory to Russia for security guarantees — a move some experts deem "political suicide."

"The stakes are enormous for all parties involved," Mariya Y. Omelicheva, a Professor of Strategy at the National War College in Washington, DC-based National Defence University, tells TRT World.

She says Ukraine's sovereignty hangs in the balance, Europe's security is at risk, and Trump’s aspirations to cement his legacy as a peacemaker all "are on the line."

"Given his [Trump] strong motivation to bring the conflict to an end, it’s unlikely he would abandon the mediation effort entirely. However, he may leverage the threat of withdrawing US support to pressure Kyiv [Kiev] and its European partners into accepting terms that are less favourable to them."

Possible NATO-like security guarantees that Ukraine would need for any peace with Russia to be durable are on the table for discussion.

Russian President Putin opposes Ukraine joining NATO outright. But Trump's team claims the Russian leader is open to allies agreeing to defend Ukraine if it is attacked.

On Sunday night, Trump suggested that Ukraine could not regain Crimea, a peninsula occupied by Russia in 2014, setting off an armed conflict that led to its broader invasion in 2022.

Trump said Putin reiterated during their recent meeting in Alaska that he wants the key Donetsk and Luhansk regions that make up the Donbass.

Trump has ceased advocating for a ceasefire, now favouring a comprehensive peace accord.

Besides Zelesnkyy, those attending the White House meetings include, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Italian Premier Giorgia Meloni, and Finnish President Alexander Stubb.

Room for compromise?

Mikhail Alexseev, a Professor of Political Science at San Diego State University, California, calls Monday's meetings "supremely significant."

"This is a multilateral summit without preset agreements. Possible outcomes may range from the US withdrawing its support for Ukraine and the war continuing, with Russia emboldened in its aggression, to the US president accepting Ukraine's and European security concerns and doubling up pressure on Moscow, militarily and economically, to have it change its stance," Alexseev tells TRT World.

"We may see some intermediate outcomes, but the gap between Russian demands and what Ukraine can accept without risking to perish as a sovereign state remains enormous," he says.

"It cannot be bridged without Russia at least dropping its claims to still unoccupied Ukrainian territories and withdrawing from some Ukrainian territories in the South and without the US and Europe committing to deploy some kind of tripwire military force in or around Ukraine."

Alexseev says Zelenskyy cannot possibly agree to Putin's offer made in Alaska.

"If Ukraine cedes the 30 percent or so of the Donetsk province that it now controls, Russia would acquire a major bridgehead for deep advances threatening major Ukrainian cities, such as Kharkiv and Poltava," he argues.

However, there's room for compromise, he says.

"Ukraine could agree to accept Russia's de facto control of the occupied territories without legally recognising Russian sovereignty. But it will need more tangible security guarantees than pledges or paper agreements. It will have to entail boots on the grounds. Russia has broken every key agreement granting Ukraine's territorial integrity going back to 1994, 1997, and 2015."

Putin's acceptance of security guarantees, he argues, is likely insincere, calling it a ploy to delay sanctions under the guise of seeking peace.

"Putin's alleged acceptance of 'Article 5 type' security guarantees is very likely disingenuous. It's a highly complex, thorny issue and my sense is that Putin presented it as a 'concession' with the sole purpose to gain time to delay and to soften any international sanctions under the pretext of seeking a peal deal," says Alexseev.

While the transfer of Crimea, annexed illegally by Russia, is a bitter pill, it may be the only option the Ukrainian leadership and public could reluctantly tolerate, Omelicheva argues.

"In contrast, surrendering Donbass would be far more humiliating and strategically perilous. As a contiguous region, it could serve as a launchpad for future Russian aggression, posing a long-term threat to Ukraine’s sovereignty and security."

Risks if meeting fails

Ahead of his meeting with Trump, Zelenskyy stated that European leaders had aligned their stances for a reliable and lasting peace in Ukraine and Europe.

"We shouldn’t expect Putin to voluntarily abandon aggression and new attempts at conquest," Zelenskyy wrote on X, sharing a video, depicting European leaders greeting and embracing at a prior meeting in Washington DC.

"That is why pressure must work, and it must be joint pressure — from the United States and Europe, and from everyone in the world who respects the right to life and the international order."

Meanwhile, former Ukrainian presidential advisor Alexander Rodnyansky tells TRT World the risks are significant if the White House meeting fails to yield a breakthrough.

"The risk is that Trump could ultimately threaten to withdraw support and leave Ukraine dependent on the Europeans—who, despite their intentions, remain a paper tiger unable to substitute for the US militarily or economically," says Rodnyansky.

"Whether this is a highly likely scenario is unclear, but the risk is significant today."

He stresses that Zelenskyy is not prepared to accept any major concessions or territorial compromises, arguing that the only feasible solution is to freeze the front line and pursue security guarantees for Ukraine, "ideally alongside recovery assistance and reconstruction funding, possibly backed by Russian sanctions."

"This is the best-case outcome they are hoping for. However, in terms of territory, there is no willingness to cede more Ukrainian land, nor would the population support such a move."