For perspective on today's meeting between the U.S. and Russia, we get two views.

Andrea Kendall-Taylor is a former senior intelligence official who focused on Russia and Eurasia.

She's now at the bipartisan think tank Center For a New American security.

And Paul Saunders is executive director of the bipartisan Center for the National Interest.

He served in the State Department during the George W. Bush administration.

Thank you both for being here.

PAUL SAUNDERS, Center for the National Interest: Thank you.

GEOFF BENNETT: And we should say that, late today President Trump, while speaking to reporters at Mar-a-Lago, he was asked for his message to Ukrainians who might feel betrayed or disappointed by not having a seat at the table.

And here's what he said.

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: They're upset about not having a seat.

Well, they have had a seat for three years, and a long time before that.

This could have been settled very easily.

GEOFF BENNETT: He also falsely suggested that Ukraine started this war.

But Paul, the U.S. approach has provoked a deep alarm among European allies.

Is that alarm warranted?

Should Kyiv have had a seat at today's meeting?

PAUL SAUNDERS: Look, I don't think that the Ukrainian government needs to be present in every single meeting that occurs.

I think that's not realistic, actually.

As a practical matter, as the national security adviser suggested, I think implied, it's going to be a very complicated negotiation.

There are pieces that need to be addressed with the Ukrainians.

There are pieces that need to be addressed with the Europeans.

There are pieces that need to be addressed with the Russians.

And if we try to have 30 European governments and the Ukrainian government and the Russian government all in a room together with American negotiators, I don't think it would be very productive.

So, I think it's very appropriate to meet individually with other parties.

In totality, we have to meet with the Ukrainians.

And, certainly, the Ukrainians have to be part of any agreement.

The war is on their territory and they have to stop fighting for the war to end.

So, they need to be part of the deal.

They don't need to be in every meeting.

GEOFF BENNETT: Andrea, how do you see it?

ANDREA KENDALL-TAYLOR, Center For a New American Security: Well, I think the problem is that, through this bilateral channel between the United States and Russia, the United States seems to be giving away major concessions before Ukraine is really made a part of the negotiation.

So we have heard from senior Trump administration officials that Ukraine will have to concede significant parts of its territory, that Ukraine will not have a place in NATO.

The United States has already indicated that it won't play a role with boots on the ground in sustaining any peace in Ukraine or that any peacekeeping force would fall under a NATO umbrella.

So these are really major concessions that the United States is giving away in this bilateral format.

And that has real implications for Ukraine.

So once Ukraine gets to the negotiating table, we have basically taken their knees out from under them and put them in a far weaker position.

So if we were going into these discussions with Russia, it should have been the case that the United States had had some coordinated position with Kyiv and with its European allies before going into that meeting.

GEOFF BENNETT: Add to that, Paul, the U.S. approach and attitude suggests that the administration is already looking beyond this war and looking toward meeting President Trump's long-held goal of boosting ties with Vladimir Putin.

Is there any concern about, one, the U.S. robbing Ukraine of its agency, of its decision-making in this entire process, or two, of capitulating to Moscow?

PAUL SAUNDERS: Well, look, I think first of all, to the extent that Ukraine has agency, it has it in no small part because of the American assistance that's already occurred over the last three years.

So I don't think we should have any illusions about that.

And for Ukraine to expect the United States and the American people to do what had been down over the last three years indefinitely, I think, is unrealistic.

So, first of all, I think we should be quite clear about that.

Now, I certainly agree that I think it's a mistake to look like you're making concessions before a negotiation starts.

And I think some of the things that some administration officials said may have been ill-advised and could have waited.

But, ultimately, the United States has a very large stake in this conflict.

And the United States is a sovereign country.

And the leaders of the United States get to decide how long we're prepared as a country to stick with it.

And, certainly, there are good reasons, when one thinks about all of the other challenges that the United States faces in the world, not to mention our rapidly diminishing stocks of the weapons that we have been providing to Ukraine, there are good reasons for the United States to think long and hard about how long we want to continue what we have been doing.

GEOFF BENNETT: What about that, Andrea?

I think President Trump's view could be summed up as, why not try another way?

That the strategy during the Biden administration was aimed at assisting Ukraine while preventing escalation.

And that led to what you could argue was a cautious and in many ways delayed military response.

Despite the U.S. spending more than $65 billion, the war is now stalemated.

Why not try another way? '

ANDREA KENDALL-TAYLOR: Well, I think the other way really should be from a position of strength.

And to do that, the United States does have a lot of agency and a lot of opportunity to help Ukraine achieve a just peace.

I think that's something that President Trump has said that he wants to accomplish.

And the best path to getting to a just and durable piece is to negotiate from a position of strength.

And so, really, if President Trump could come in and renew military aid and assistance to Ukraine, it would go an exceptionally long way in demonstrating to President Putin that he cannot achieve his aims on the battlefield.

And that would get him into a position where he would have to enter into negotiations from a more genuine position than he currently is.

And so there is this other way, which is to try to convince Putin that he can't continue.

And then that would allow us to bring an end to the war.

I think we all agree that we want to bring an end to the war.

But in order to have a durable peace, the United States cannot make all of these major concessions, because the risk is that, yes, we could get to a cease-fire, but if we're allowing Russia to get sanctions relief, to keep Ukraine out of NATO, to limit the size of the Ukrainian military, so that it can't defend itself in the future, the key issue will be, we might get peace now, but it will just enable Russia to pocket these concessions and strengthen its position to attack Ukraine again in the future and potentially to broaden its ambitions to other parts of Europe.

GEOFF BENNETT: Andrea Kendall-Taylor and Paul Saunders, thank you both for sharing your perspectives with us this evening.

PAUL SAUNDERS: Thank you.

Thank you.

ANDREA KENDALL-TAYLOR: Thanks.