President Trump has focused on a limited ceasefire in the Ukraine war as he seeks to get the ball rolling on broader peace talks between Moscow and Kyiv.

Russian President Vladimir Putin this week rejected a full 30-day ceasefire proposed by the U.S. and backed by Ukraine, but he signaled openness to a narrower truce focused on energy infrastructure, though many questions remain about its terms and implementation.

U.S. officials are expected in Saudi Arabia next week, with reported plans to hold separate meetings with Ukrainian and Russian delegations on Monday to hash out details.

Here’s what each side wants in the talks, and why Trump’s NATO plans are a wild card.

What Trump wants

While Trump has fallen short of his promise to end the war in 24 hours, he can say there is forward movement in the talks.

So far, his strategy has focused on pressuring Ukraine into concessions by leveraging military and intelligence assistance, while offering Putin a choice between economic carrots or sticks.

Economic deals seem to be a priority for Trump in both talks with Ukraine and Russia. In Trump’s call with Putin, he emphasized that improved ties between the two countries “has huge upside,” including geopolitical stability.

Trump has been pressuring Ukraine to sign a mineral extraction deal, and he raised a new idea after a call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky this week: taking ownership of Ukrainian nuclear power plants.

Zelensky said the discussion focused on Ukraine’s largest nuclear power plant, Zaporizhzhia, which is under Russian occupation, and whether there might be a U.S. role in bringing it back into Ukraine’s hands, perhaps as part of territorial talks.

Trump is reportedly interested in the plant as part of powering the mining industry in Ukraine after the war. He said Friday that contracts are being negotiated over “dividing up the lands” as part of a final peace deal.

Putin declared annexation of four Ukrainian territories, including Zaporizhzhia, despite not having full territorial control and international rejections.

Benjamin Schmitt, senior fellow at the University of Pennsylvania Kleinman Center for Energy Policy, said the idea of U.S. control of the nuclear plant was problematic for multiple reasons.

“Putin, frankly, is not going to be satisfied with any of that, because his war aims were to undermine Ukrainian sovereignty fully,” he said. “And so the notion that the United States having, let's say control, if not ownership, in some way over Zaporizhzhia power plant, that would have........

© The Hill