Alaska, August 15

On August 15, 2025, Alaska will host the first meeting between the U.S. and Russian presidents in four years. Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin will discuss conditions for ending the war in Ukraine, which has been ongoing for three and a half years. On the eve of the summit, Trump stated his readiness for territorial exchanges, causing panic in Europe and a harsh reaction from Kyiv.

“I’ll Know in the First Two Minutes”: Trump Prepares to Feel Out Positions

On August 11, at a White House press conference, Trump called the upcoming meeting a “feel-out” session and acknowledged that he is not taking responsibility for reaching an agreement. “This is really a feel-out meeting, a little bit,” the American president stated, adding that he would know about the prospects for negotiations “probably in the first two minutes.” (ABC News)

Trump did not rule out the possibility of failed negotiations. “I may leave and say, ‘Good luck.’ And that’ll be the end. I may say, ‘This, this is not going to be settled,’” he warned, emphasizing that he is ready for tough talks with the Russian leader. (Reuters)

The American president promised to demand that Putin end the war. “I am going in to speak to Vladimir Putin and I will be telling him, ‘You have to end this war. You have to end it,’” Trump stated. (ABC News)

Territorial Exchanges as the Basis for a Deal

Trump’s most controversial statement concerned territorial concessions. “There’ll be some land swapping going on,” the U.S. president told reporters, adding that both sides of the conflict will have to make compromises. (Reuters)

Trump acknowledged that Russia has occupied “very prime territory” but promised to try to get some of it back. “I know that through Russia and through conversations with everybody, to the good of Ukraine. Russia had occupied some very prime territory but we’re going to try to get some of that territory back,” the American leader explained. (Reuters)

According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), as of August 2025, Russia controls approximately 6,000 square kilometers of Ukrainian territory. Meanwhile, Russian army losses are estimated at approximately one million killed and wounded. (CSIS)

Visualization of the Territorial Issue

Alternative view - military experts: Some analysts from RAND Corporation believe that any territorial concessions will create a dangerous precedent for future conflicts. “Legitimizing territorial seizure by force will undermine the rules-based international order,” experts note. At the same time, representatives of the Quincy Institute argue that a pragmatic approach to the territorial issue may be the only path to ending the bloodshed.

“Concessions Do Not Persuade a Killer”: Ukraine’s Contradictory Position

Trump’s statements about territorial exchanges triggered a sharp reaction in Kyiv. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy published a harsh statement on August 11, rejecting any concessions to Russia. “Concessions do not persuade a killer,” the Ukrainian leader wrote on social network X. (Reuters)

“Russia refuses to stop the killings, and therefore must not receive any rewards or benefits,” Zelenskyy emphasized, warning that any territorial concessions would not lead to peace but would only encourage further aggression. (Reuters)

Signals of Readiness for Compromise

However, according to reports from the British Telegraph, the Ukrainian leadership’s position may be more flexible than it appears publicly. The publication’s sources claim that Zelenskyy is ready to consider freezing the conflict along the current front line in exchange for reliable security guarantees for Ukraine. (Telegraph)

According to these reports, the Ukrainian leadership understands the complexity of the military situation and is ready for pragmatic solutions if they ensure the country’s long-term security. The key condition remains obtaining firm international guarantees that will prevent the resumption of Russian aggression in the future.

The Ukrainian president also expressed concern that Putin would use the meeting with Trump for propaganda purposes. According to Zelenskyy, the Russian leader is “determined only to present a meeting with America as his personal victory.” (ABC News)

Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine Andriy Yermak held talks with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio on August 12, insisting that lasting peace requires “an unconditional ceasefire as a prerequisite for substantive negotiations.” (Reuters)

European Panic: Emergency Consultations Before the Summit

The prospect of a bilateral deal between the U.S. and Russia without Europe’s participation caused panic in Brussels. On August 11, an emergency meeting of EU foreign ministers took place, where European diplomats expressed concerns about being excluded from the decision-making process regarding Ukraine’s fate. (Al Jazeera)

Additional context - European sources: According to diplomatic sources in Brussels, disagreements within the EU are deeper than they appear publicly. Hungary and Slovakia advocate for peace at any cost as soon as possible, Poland and the Baltic states demand a tough line against Russia, while Germany and France try to find a balance between supporting Ukraine and economic interests. “EU unity is hanging by a thread,” admits a high-ranking European diplomat on condition of anonymity.

EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas took a tough stance, stating that no concessions to Russia are acceptable without a prior ceasefire. “As far as Russia has not agreed to full and unconditional ceasefire, we should not even discuss any concessions. The sequencing of the steps is important. First an unconditional ceasefire with a strong monitoring system and ironclad security guarantees,” Kallas emphasized. (Reuters)

Kallas also insists on the need for transatlantic unity. According to her, “transatlantic unity, support to Ukraine and pressure on Russia” are necessary to end the war and “prevent future Russian aggression in Europe.” The EU is preparing a 19th sanctions package against Russia to increase pressure ahead of negotiations. (Reuters)

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and his Canadian counterpart Mark Carney held telephone talks on August 11 and agreed that diplomatic efforts are welcome, but peace “must be built with Ukraine - not imposed upon it.” (Reuters)

Germany has taken the initiative to coordinate the European position, announcing a virtual meeting of EU leaders on August 14. The meeting will include leaders of member states, NATO representatives, and possibly Ukrainian President Zelenskyy. The goal of the meeting is to develop a unified position before the Trump-Putin summit. (Reuters)

European leaders are unanimous in one demand: “the path to peace in Ukraine cannot be decided without Ukraine.” (Al Jazeera)

The Zelenskyy Question: Will the Ukrainian President Come to Alaska?

One of the main intrigues before the summit remains the possible participation of Volodymyr Zelenskyy. According to NBC News, the White House is considering inviting the Ukrainian leader to Alaska to participate in negotiations or hold a separate meeting with Trump. (NBC News)

“It’s being discussed,” reported a source familiar with discussions in the American administration. However, a final decision has not yet been made, and Zelenskyy’s visit has not been confirmed. (NBC News)

Trump stated that future meetings could include the Ukrainian leader, and the U.S. goal is to achieve a ceasefire as soon as possible in the conflict that has lasted three and a half years. The American president also promised to hold consultations with European leaders soon after negotiations with Putin. (Reuters)

Putin’s Diplomatic Activity: Preparing for the Meeting

The Russian president is also actively preparing for the summit. In recent days, Putin has held a series of telephone negotiations with leaders of China, India, Brazil, and several post-Soviet states, informing them about his contacts with the U.S. (Reuters)

For Putin, this will be his first visit to the U.S. since 2015 and his first meeting with a sitting American president since June 2021, when he met with Joe Biden in Geneva. The Alaska summit will be the most important diplomatic event since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022. (ABC News)

The Kellogg Plan: European Peacekeepers and NATO Rejection

The Trump administration is not revealing details of the proposed territorial exchanges, but the general contours of the American plan are already known. U.S. Special Envoy for Ukraine, retired General Keith Kellogg, previously proposed creating “resilience forces” from European NATO military personnel to guard the front line. (Reuters)

Kellogg’s plan envisions creating an 18-mile demilitarized zone in eastern Ukraine. American troops would not participate in the peacekeeping operation - all responsibility would fall on European allies. (Reuters)

A key element of the plan is Ukraine’s rejection of NATO membership, which corresponds to one of Putin’s main demands. Britain and France in July convened a “coalition of the willing” of more than 30 countries and agreed on plans to create European “support forces” on land, air, and sea, as well as to “rebuild” the Ukrainian army. (Reuters)

Expert Pessimism: Why Peace Is Unlikely

Experts from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) are skeptical about the prospects for achieving lasting peace at the Alaska meeting. Seth Jones reminds us that only 16% of interstate wars since World War II end with a peace agreement - most end with military victory by one side. (CSIS)

Statistics on How Wars End

Maria Snegovaya from CSIS warns that Putin may receive diplomatic recognition without substantial concessions, possibly limiting his territorial demands to the Donetsk region. This will create a dangerous precedent and does not guarantee an end to the conflict in the long term. (CSIS)

Alternative view - Heritage Foundation: Conservative analysts argue that only a demonstration of strength can force Putin to make real concessions. “Increasing military aid to Ukraine and tightening sanctions should precede any negotiations,” Heritage Foundation believes. However, Quincy Institute experts object that escalation could lead to a direct NATO-Russia confrontation.

Mark Cancian characterizes Ukraine’s military position as “dangerous,” given territorial losses and resource depletion after three and a half years of war. In his assessment, despite Russia’s enormous losses, Moscow retains the ability to continue hostilities. (CSIS)

Benjamin Jensen emphasizes that territorial exchanges alone are insufficient to end the war. “Broader negotiations on security, assets, and reconstruction are necessary,” the expert believes, warning about the complexity of achieving sustainable peace. (CSIS)

Complexity of Peace Settlement

Expired Deadline: Failure of Trump’s 100-Day Plan

The Alaska meeting occurs against the backdrop of the failure of Trump’s initial plan to end the war within 100 days of inauguration. On January 20, 2025, upon taking office, Trump promised to quickly achieve peace in Ukraine, but by the April deadline, no agreement had been reached.

August 8, 2025, it became clear that the deadline had definitively expired, and the Trump administration was forced to acknowledge the need for direct negotiations with Putin. According to analysts, the failure of the initial plan forced the White House to revise its strategy and agree to a personal meeting of the leaders, despite the risks of legitimizing the Russian position. (August 8, 2025: Deadline Expired, Alaska Meeting Set ~ Covalent Bond)

In recent weeks, the Trump administration has intensified pressure on Russia, agreeing to supply additional American weapons to Ukraine and threatening tariffs against buyers of Russian oil. These measures are intended to strengthen the U.S. negotiating position ahead of the summit, but their effectiveness remains questionable.

Military Situation: Active Fighting Continues

Despite diplomatic activity, fighting in Ukraine continues. On August 11, Ukraine claimed to have struck a missile component production facility in the Nizhny Novgorod region of Russia, while the Russian side reported destroying 59 Ukrainian drones overnight. (Al Jazeera)

Military analysis - Institute for the Study of War: “Intensification of fighting before negotiations is a classic tactic. Each side tries to capture maximum territory to strengthen its negotiating position,” ISW analysts note. According to their data, the pace of Russian advance has slowed from 10 km² per day at the beginning of 2025 to 2-3 km² in August, indicating exhaustion of offensive potential.

The continuation of hostilities complicates the negotiation process and undermines hopes for a quick ceasefire. Both sides seek to improve their battlefield positions before possible negotiations, leading to escalation of violence.

Humanitarian aspect - UN: According to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, more than 30,000 civilians have been killed since the beginning of the full-scale invasion, although the real figures may be significantly higher. “Any peace agreement must include mechanisms for protecting civilians and investigating war crimes,” the UN insists.

Historical Context: Lessons from Past Summits

The Trump-Putin meeting in Alaska evokes parallels with historical Cold War summits when superpower leaders met to discuss global crises. However, the current situation is complicated by the participation of a third party - Ukraine, whose fate is the subject of negotiations.

Unlike the bipolar world of the Cold War, modern geopolitics is multipolar. China, India, the European Union, and other players have their own interests in the Ukrainian conflict, making achieving a comprehensive agreement extremely difficult.

Domestic Political Pressure on Leaders

All three main participants in the drama - Trump, Putin, and Zelenskyy - are experiencing serious domestic political pressure. Trump must show results after the failure of his 100-day plan. Putin needs an exit from a protracted conflict that is exhausting the Russian economy. Zelenskyy cannot afford an agreement that will be perceived by Ukrainians as capitulation.

Pressure on Leaders: Comparative Analysis

Alternative assessment - Brookings Institution: Analysts note that internal pressure on Putin may be exaggerated by Western observers. “The Russian elite is consolidated around the president, and society has adapted to sanctions conditions,” Brookings believes. On the other hand, Carnegie Endowment experts point to growing cracks in Russian society and signs of “war fatigue” among the population.

This pressure can both facilitate compromise and lead to the breakdown of negotiations if leaders consider the political price of an agreement too high.

Scenarios for Development

Optimistic Scenario

In the best case, the Alaska meeting could lead to a ceasefire agreement and the beginning of multilateral negotiations with the participation of Ukraine and European partners. This would create a foundation for gradual de-escalation and possibly long-term settlement.

Realistic Scenario

More likely, the meeting will be just the first step in a lengthy negotiation process. The parties may agree to continue contacts and create working groups to discuss technical details of a possible agreement.

Pessimistic Scenario

In the worst case, negotiations could end in failure, as Trump himself warns. This would lead to further escalation of the conflict and deepening of the divide between Russia and the West. A split in the Western coalition is also possible if the U.S. and Europe cannot agree on a common position.

Key Unanswered Questions

On the eve of the summit, many questions remain. Which territories exactly is Trump willing to concede? Will Putin agree to a real ceasefire or insist on Ukraine’s capitulation? How will Europe react if the U.S. concludes a deal without considering European interests? Can Zelenskyy accept any compromise without losing support within the country?

The answers to these questions will determine not only Ukraine’s fate but also the future of European security and world order for decades to come.

What to Expect from August 15

The Trump-Putin meeting in Alaska will be a critical moment in the history of the Ukrainian conflict. Regardless of the outcome, it will mark a new stage in attempts to settle the largest war in Europe since World War II.

Key Factors for Success or Failure

Alternative forecast - Foreign Affairs: Leading experts from the journal predict that the meeting will end with a “cosmetic agreement” - both sides will announce progress without real agreements. “Trump will get a PR victory, Putin - legitimization, and the war will continue,” analysts predict. At the same time, optimists from the Quincy Institute see a chance for breakthrough: “Personal chemistry between leaders and fatigue from the conflict could lead to an unexpected compromise.”

The world will closely watch for signals from Alaska. Any agreement between the U.S. and Russia without Ukraine’s participation risks being unviable. At the same time, continuation of the war carries catastrophic consequences for all parties.

Economic perspective - Bloomberg: According to financial analysts, the continuation of the war costs the global economy $400 billion annually through inflation, energy crisis, and disruption of trade chains. “Even an imperfect peace is economically more advantageous than a protracted conflict,” Bloomberg notes. However, critics point out that the price of capitulation to aggression may be even higher in the long term.

August 15 could be either the beginning of the end of the war or confirmation that a diplomatic solution is impossible in the near future. In any case, the Alaska meeting will go down in history as an attempt by two nuclear powers to negotiate the fate of a third country - with all the moral and geopolitical consequences of such an approach.

Historical Parallels: Lessons from the Past

Historical perspective - Harvard researchers: “Every historical analogy has its limitations. Ukraine is not Czechoslovakia of 1938, nor Bosnia of 1995. The uniqueness of the situation is that for the first time since World War II, a nuclear power is trying to forcibly change borders in Europe,” Harvard historians note.