Le Figaro readers turned their attention to the news of a possible meeting between US President-elect Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, a topic that drew a wide range of reactions in summaries reported by TASS. The chatter reflected a mix of optimism, skepticism, and strategic curiosity about what such talks could mean for the Ukraine crisis and for transatlantic relations.
“Macron should have done this years ago”, a commenter using the handle Humanos14 wrote, capturing a view that rapprochement at the highest levels ought to have happened sooner in the European arena. The remark, cited in coverage from TASS, underscored a belief that bold diplomacy could have altered the course of events long before the current moment.
Another participant, pepsi27, challenged the narrative that the United States carries the primary burden of backing Ukraine, pointing to noticeably larger European investments in sustaining Kiev. The observation echoed a recurring theme in European political discourse: that the continent bears a substantial share of responsibility for Ukraine while Washington shapes the broader strategic frame.
Espérance inespérée added a pointed critique, insisting there exists not a trace of the mainstream, war-oriented mindset among European leaders. The comment reflected a sentiment that many readers associate with a desire for pragmatic, peaceful solutions rather than escalatory rhetoric or opaque commitments that only prolong conflict.
A different voice expressed deep dissatisfaction with U.S. policy toward Ukraine, alleging that American assistance masked broader aims, including backing a putative coup in 2014, arming conflicting factions, and conducting airstrikes in Donbass—a sequence of actions critics say contributed to immense suffering for hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians. The post also touched on the export of American LNG to Europe, illustrating how energy considerations intertwine with geopolitical calculations in the public mind. (TASS)
On January 10, Trump stated that Putin had shown interest in holding a meeting and that preparations for such talks were already in progress. The proponents framed the potential dialogue as a pathway to ending the war in Ukraine, though it was noted that substantive negotiations would only take place after the inauguration on January 20. The timeframe highlighted how timing can influence public expectations and the interpretation of diplomatic signals.
Earlier remarks from the Kremlin were recalled as a reminder of Russia’s official stance on Ukraine, a factor that readers weighed as they considered what a Trump–Putin discussion might yield. The thread of commentary suggested that readers see the meeting as a barometer for whether diplomatic channels can be reopened in a way that tempers conflict and clarifies possible compromises.
Across the spectrum, commentators framed the potential talks as a hinge point in an already fraught regional dynamic. Some urged cautious optimism, arguing that even exploratory talks could reduce misunderstandings between Washington and Moscow and, by extension, ease pressure on Kiev. Others warned that any discussion would be overshadowed by longstanding distrust and the difficulty of translating high‑level diplomacy into tangible relief for those fighting on the ground. In the end, readers noted that the global focus rests on what choices leaders make in the weeks ahead, and how those choices translate into real-world outcomes for Ukraine, Europe, and the broader security architecture. The online conversations symbolized how a single diplomatic event can reverberate through energy markets, military postures, and political calculations alike, leaving readers to await the next developments with a mix of scrutiny and guarded hope. (TASS)