Defining Days for Ukraine and Russia-West Relations
Over the past month, the world has remained focused on what was likely to prove the climactic episode of the Russia-Ukraine war.
In early July, President Donald Trump issued his harshest criticism of President Putin, stating that Washington was restarting its arms shipments to Ukraine to respond to Russian attacks on civilians. In the following days, he said, “We’re very unhappy with Russia and we’ll be doing very severe tariffs, at about 100%.” Then, Mr. Trump gave Russia a 50-day deadline for a ceasefire.
On July 14, speaking alongside NATO’s Secretary General Rutte, at the White House, Mr. Trump said that Patriot air defense systems and other arms would “quickly” be transferred to Ukraine, adding that the US would sell those arms to European nations, who would ship them to Ukraine or use them to replace weapons they send to the country from their existing stocks.
At the end of July, Mr. Trump shortened Russia’s peace deal deadline from 50 to “10 or 12 days”. On August 1, he ordered two nuclear submarines to be positioned “in the appropriate regions” after former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev reminded the United States that Moscow still has nuclear strike capabilities. In response, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov cautioned against nuclear escalation.
On August 6, US special envoy Steve Witkoff met with President Putin. The same day, Mr. Trump said that there was a “very good prospect” of a summit meeting soon with Russia that could lead to the end of the war in Ukraine. In the past, he repeatedly said that while he and Putin had good conversations, they were followed by renewed attacks on Ukraine.
Once it was decided that the summit would be held in Alaska on Friday, August 15, “days of messaging” began in Washington with Mr. Trump taking the spotlight with twists and turns in defining what the summit could achieve.
Mr. Trump had his first salvo when he said, “There’ll be some swapping of territories to the betterment of both, but we’ll be talking about that either later, or tomorrow.” President Zelensky immediately rejected ceding land to Russia. At first, there were some remarks about President Zelensky’s possible presence at the Trump-Putin summit, but it soon became clear that this was not going to happen.
In the following days, Mr. Trump started to characterize his meeting with the Russian leader as a “feel-out meeting” to gauge his ideas for ending the war in Ukraine. He and his officials called Friday’s summit with Mr. Putin a “listening exercise.” Speaking after a call with Volodymyr Zelensky and other European leaders, Mr. Trump said that President Putin will face “very severe consequences” if he does not agree to a ceasefire. Later, he said that there was a 25 percent chance that the summit would fail. Last Thursday, Mr. Trump said he believes his Russian counterpart is ready to end the war in Ukraine, but peace would likely require at least a second meeting involving Ukraine’s leader. Finally, on his flight to Alaska, Mr. Trump told reporters that he was not having the meeting to broker a deal on behalf of Ukraine, and that his goal was getting President Putin to the table. He ended up saying again that Russia would face severe consequences if the summit failed. His officials mentioned the possibility of Mr. Trump walking out of the meeting or cancelling the joint press conference if the talks proved a failure.
Russia’s participation in this messaging exercise was minimal. In his opening remarks at a preparatory meeting with top officials at the Kremlin last Thursday, Mr. Putin said that the Trump administration was making “quite energetic and sincere efforts to stop the hostilities” and to “reach agreements that are of interest to all parties involved.” He also suggested that “long-term conditions of peace between the two countries, and in Europe, and in the world as a whole,” could be reached under an agreement with the US on nuclear arms control. Was this a suggestion to expand the agenda of the Alaska meeting? Perhaps.
Excluded from the Alaska summit, European leaders met in Berlin on Tuesday, August 12. They issued a statement which, while welcoming President Trump’s efforts towards ending Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, also said that the people of Ukraine must have the freedom to decide their future, that the path to peace in Ukraine cannot be decided without Ukraine, and meaningful negotiations can only take place in the context of a ceasefire or reduction of hostilities. (emphasis added)[i]
Hungary chose not to associate itself with the Statement.
The next day, European leaders held a virtual meeting with Mr. Trump.
European leaders’ rallying behind Ukraine was partly an attempt to show that Europe cannot be sidelined, partly an effort to make up for their failure to do more to prevent the conflict in earlier years, and partly a reflection of concerns about European security and its cost without a firm and continuing US commitment to NATO.
Last week, as Mr. Trump communicated with European leaders, President Putin had phone calls with all BRICS leaders, the leaders of Central Asian countries, and, of course, President Lukashenko, a steady ally of Russia. (After his return from Alaska, Mr. Putin again called all these leaders and informed them of his meeting with the US leader. These calls also reflect the Kremlin’s desire to show the world that it has partners across the globe.)
Looking at the two delegations that participated in the talks in Anchorage, one may say that, in terms of experience in international diplomacy, knowledge of European history, attention to detail, and patience, the Russian side had the advantage.
At last Friday’s meeting with his Russian counterpart, President Trump was focused on peace in Ukraine. President Putin had broader objectives, such as increasing Western pressure on Kyiv for a peace deal that would allow him to end the war with a “victory”, reappearing on the Western stage as a major interlocutor, taking the first steps toward a reset in relations with Washington, and perhaps even restoring trade and energy cooperation with the West.
“You can expect that it will take up a minimum of six to seven hours,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said ahead of the summit, adding that Moscow anticipated a “productive” meeting.
However, the meeting lasted only three hours and did not result in a ceasefire. Nonetheless, Mr. Trump did not walk out of the meeting, and the joint press conference was held as planned, though briefly. No questions were taken, and Mr. Trump said very little beyond mentioning that it was an extremely productive meeting, many points were agreed to, and very few remained, adding, “One is probably the most significant, but we have a very good chance of getting there.” He must have been referring to the question of territory.
Mr. Putin, as usual, reiterated that the “root causes” of the Ukraine conflict need to be eliminated before a full peace deal can be reached.[ii]
Following the summit, Mr. Trump briefed President Zelensky and the EU leaders. On August 16, President Macron, Prime Minister Meloni, Chancellor Merz, Prime Minister Starmer, President Stubb, Prime Minister Tusk, President Costa, and President von der Leyen issued a statement that went beyond the earlier statement of EU leaders. It said:
“We are clear that Ukraine must have ironclad security guarantees to effectively defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity. We welcome President Trump’s statement that the US is prepared to give security guarantees. The Coalition of the Willing is ready to play an active role. No limitations should be placed on Ukraine’s armed forces or on its cooperation with third countries. Russia cannot have a veto against Ukraine‘s pathway to the EU and NATO.[iii]
“It will be up to Ukraine to make decisions on its territory. International borders must not be changed by force.” (emphasis added)
In response, Washington started sending messages to Kyiv and the EU leaders in public statements.
Firstly, in what many called a “reversal of strategy to end the war”, he said that achieving a permanent peace deal is better than seeking temporary ceasefires.
Secondly, he messaged the following:
“President Zelenskyy of Ukraine can end the war with Russia almost immediately, if he wants to, or he can continue to fight. Remember how it started. No getting back Obama given Crimea (12 years ago, without a shot being fired!), and NO GOING INTO NATO BY UKRAINE. Some things never change!!!”
And thirdly, Mr. Trump’s top envoy Steve Witkoff told CNN that Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed to allow “game-changing, robust security guarantees,” describing them as an “Article 5” type of protection against further Russian invasion. He also said that Mr. Putin had agreed to “legislative enshrinement” by Russia to not go into any other territory, in Ukraine or elsewhere in Europe, as part of a potential peace deal.
Interestingly, during his comments to the media in Anchorage, Mr. Putin had said, “I agree with President Trump. He said today that Ukraine’s security must be ensured by all means. Of course, we are ready to work on this. Hopefully, the understanding we have reached will bring us closer to this goal and open up the road to peace in Ukraine.”
In brief, Washington set the agenda for Monday’s Washington summit as:
Acceptance of the annexation of Crimea by Russia.
Strong security guarantees, but no membership in NATO.
Territorial swaps, which essentially meant “ceding more territory” to Russia. (Russia annexed Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson in 2023.)
It was clear from Washington’s messages that a “deal” with Russia had been broadly agreed upon in Alaska, and it was now up to Kyiv and the EU leaders to agree with the deal or continue fighting on their own.
Yesterday, Mr. Zelensky, President Macron, President Stubb, Prime Minister Meloni, Chancellor Merz, NATO Secretary General Rutte, and European Commission President von der Leyen were at the White House. Their meetings with President Trump reflected a positive atmosphere, but understandably, there was no celebration. President Macron and Chancellor Merz again urged for a ceasefire. The former also mentioned the need for European participation in future talks with Russia. This must have fallen on deaf ears on the American side. Watching the Washington meetings on CNN, one could not help thinking that Mr. Trump chose to spend as much time with the media as with European leaders.
It now seems that President Trump, who appears to be in a hurry to move forward, will continue his conversations with the Russian leader for a second summit, this time with the participation of Mr. Zelensky.
Without a shadow of a doubt, ensuring “lasting peace” in Ukraine remains a significant challenge and will require time. In Washington, the focus was on security guarantees to be provided to Ukraine under a peace agreement. Not much was said publicly about the question of “territorial swaps”. Yet, this could prove to be the main obstacle to achieving peace at the next summit, and Kyiv is likely to be disappointed with the support it may receive from the West in standing up against Russia on this issue. Despite the appeals of President Zelensky and European leaders, a ceasefire remains a distant possibility.
At this juncture, the Turkish government’s top priority seems to be hosting a summit in Türkiye since this would help Ankara put behind its once popular, now hardly mentioned “precious loneliness”.
As the world remained focused on the Anchorage summit, Israel’s far-right Finance Minister Smotrich announced plans to build more than 3,000 housing units in the West Bank, adding that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu backs the plan. Since the project would split the West Bank into north and south, Mr. Smotrich also said that the move “buries the idea of a Palestinian state.”
Moreover, according to information attributed to diplomatic sources, Israel is in talks with Indonesia, Libya, Somaliland, Uganda, and South Sudan about the “voluntary immigration of Gazans”.[iv] Next in line will probably be the Palestinians of the West Bank.
If any party to the conflict were to approach Ankara with a proposal for the “voluntary migration of Gazans” to Türkiye, the government should slam the door in their faces, regardless of who they might be.
[i] https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2025/08/12/statement-by-european-union-leaders-on-ukraine/?utm_source=brevo&utm_campaign=AUTOMATED%20-%20Alert%20-%20Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_id=3318
[ii] http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/77793
[iii] https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2025/08/16/statement-by-president-macron-prime-minister-meloni-chancellor-merz-prime-minister-starmer-president-stubb-prime-minister-tusk-president-costa-president-von-der-leyen/?utm_source=brevo&utm_campaign=AUTOMATED%20-%20Alert%20-%20Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_id=3318
[iv] https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-said-in-talks-with-indonesia-libya-3-more-countries-about-taking-in-gazans/