After three hours of talks in Alaska, Presidents Trump and Vladimir Putin emerged describing their discussion as “extremely productive.” While they offered no specifics, Trump said the next steps would involve phone calls to NATO leaders and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The absence of a definitive peace treaty came as no surprise, but the discussion marks an important step toward ending the conflict. Putin’s apparent readiness to explore a comprehensive settlement places new pressure on Kiev to reconsider its negotiating position.
The timing of the summit was as important as its outcome. In recent days, Russian forces have advanced near Pokrovsk, forcing Ukrainian defenders from several fortified positions and threatening key industrial and logistical sites. While far from a decisive breakthrough, these gains have given Moscow a measure of battlefield momentum and reinforced the perception that time, for now, is on the Kremlin’s side. Against that backdrop, any willingness to discuss a settlement is notable. Putin was unlikely to agree to any form of ceasefire without reciprocal concessions from Zelensky. This will, as Trump noted, require more coordination between both Russia and Ukraine to ensure that any ceasefire is mutually agreeable and, therefore, sustainable.
Trump has taken a central role in the peace process, meeting with Zelensky in late February and now meeting with Putin for the first time in Trump’s second term. While consistently eager to draw down US commitments abroad, Trump’s attitude toward the Russia-Ukraine conflict has seemingly pivoted, with the American president cracking down on states avoiding the sanctions regime against Moscow and dispatching nuclear submarines to the “appropriate regions” in response to a trollish tweet from former Russian President and notable poaster Dmitry Medvedev. That said, Trump’s legacy as a peacemaker is clearly important to him, and he has consistently advocated for an end to the bloodshed in Ukraine.
With Ukraine, Trump’s most potent tool is the ability to curtail or cut off American aid. While his recent approach has involved compelling European governments shoulder the cost of purchasing US-made weapons for Ukraine, the underlying reality is that Washington remains the indispensable supplier of advanced arms, intelligence, and logistical support. A complete withdrawal of American assistance, whether immediate or phased, would place enormous strain on Ukraine’s military capacity, especially given Europe’s limited ability to fill the gap.
With Russia, Trump’s leverage is different. He can offer to ease or lift US sanctions in return for concrete steps toward a settlement. For Moscow, even partial relief from restrictions on finance, technology, and energy exports could provide meaningful economic breathing room. Conversely, Trump could boost aid to Ukraine if Russia resists, turning additional Western support into a penalty for obstruction. This dual ability to reward compliance or punish defiance gives him a flexible negotiating position, though one that must be calibrated carefully to avoid alienating either party.
What, then, is on the table for negotiation? It is likely that at the top of Russia’s list of demands is assurance that Ukraine will not join Nato. Since the Soviet collapse, the Western Alliance’s expansion into former Soviet republics has fueled Moscow’s suspicion that Nato’s purpose extends beyond the defense of its members. Putin has repeatedly described Ukrainian accession as a red line, viewing it as a direct threat to Russian security. Trump appears to recognize the delicacy of this issue, saying before the summit that a US security guarantee for Ukraine might be possible “but not in the form of NATO.”
Meanwhile, Zelensky’s best chance at salvaging a diplomatic win may lie in securing Ukraine’s path to EU membership. Closer integration with Western Europe has long been at the heart of Ukraine’s foreign-policy ambitions. While Russian accounts of the conflict often trace its origins to Mikhail Gorbachev’s mishandling of the Soviet collapse or to Lenin’s creation of Ukraine’s borders after the October Revolution and collapse of the Russian Empire, Ukrainians point instead to the Kremlin’s reaction to the 2014 Euromaidan uprising as the true starting point. In Kiev’s view, Russia’s aggression in 2014 was a direct attempt to block Ukraine’s turn toward Europe. If Moscow accepts the EU expansion that Kiev sought more than a decade ago, it would mark a genuine Ukrainian achievement — one rooted in the very struggle that, in both Ukrainian and Western narratives, set this war in motion.
A settlement would give Ukraine the breathing room to focus on the internal reforms required to meet the European Union’s standards of democracy, corruption, and minority rights that all aspiring members must satisfy. Ukraine holds official “candidate” status, but former European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has warned that the country’s notorious graft problem will require “massive internal reform processes” before meeting Kiev can meet codified EU requirements. Recent protests over Zelensky’s suspension of certain anti-corruption measures have compounded these concerns.
If EU accession is indeed central to Ukraine’s future, ending the war through a negotiated settlement would allow Kiev to restore the democratic and anti-corruption institutions that were suspended as a wartime necessity and to concentrate fully on meeting the requirements for EU membership.
That said, more work must be done to provide a sufficient security guarantee to Ukraine to assuage concerns that Russia will invade again in the near future. Putin seems to agree, stating that the “security of Ukraine should be ensured as well.” The Kiev government often evokes the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, in which Ukraine agreed to give up its Soviet-era nuclear arsenal in return for Russian, American, and British promises to “respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.” As Russia’s actions in the past decade have demonstrated, that agreement had little binding power. While NATO accession likely remains a red line for Putin, a more limited European or American guarantee of Ukrainian security may be necessary to get the Ukrainians on board.
Territorial transfers are also likely up for negotiation. Despite concerns that Trump and Putin had plans to carve up Ukrainian territory without Zelensky at the table, Trump has repeatedly stated that he has no such intentions. “I’m not here to negotiate for Ukraine,” the president stated aboard Air Force One while traveling to Alaska, adding “I’ve got to let Ukraine make that decision.” No territorial concessions were mentioned by the leaders following their discussion, but a redrawing of national borders seems inevitable, given the state of the conflict.
While Zelensky has repeatedly stated that Ukrainian territory is not on the negotiating table, such statements are likely posturing as to drive a better bargain for his country. Russia has held Crimea since 2014, and is steadily consolidating control in significant portions of southeastern Ukraine. Although Putin is likely to make significant territorial demands, Zelensky may be able to meet him halfway by accepting new effective boundaries without formally recognizing Russian sovereignty over those Ukrainian regions.
Should the Ukrainians agree to ceding Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhia to Russian control, Moscow should likewise agree to withdrawing its forces from Kharkiv, Dnipropetrovsk, and Sumy oblasts in central and northern Ukraine. While this is not the most desirable outcome for Zelensky, it does offer a way for him to stop the slaughter of the Ukrainian people outside of those territories which Ukraine is unlikely to reclaim by force. When all is said and done, this is a World War II-style industrial war that Ukraine is structurally incapable of winning.
As Trump continues to coordinate Ukraine and Western governments, the first step toward a settlement must be a ceasefire. As the president stated to the press, his main priority is to “stop thousands of people a week from being killed.” Given the high spirits of both leaders following their conversation, this step seems to be on the horizon, if Trump is able to convince the Ukrainians to give negotiations a chance. Had Trump found Putin’s demands to be unreasonable, it seems unlikely that the two men would be in such good humor shortly after speaking.
This bilateral US-Russia exchange, then, marks a step toward a broader negotiation. Whether it leads to a sustainable peace will depend on the willingness of all parties to turn Alaska’s cautious opening into a lasting settlement.
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Heather Penatzer
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://unherd.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.
