Ukraine’s Fate Hangs on Alaska Talks
Washington/Moscow: As the August 15, 2025, summit between U.S. President Donald J. Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Anchorage, Alaska, draws near, diplomatic efforts have intensified, with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov affirming their commitment to a “successful event” in an August 12, 2025, phone call.
The meeting, which the United States claims to be initiated by Putin and set at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, marks his first U.S. visit since 2015 and seeks to address the Russia-Ukraine war, now grinding through its third year since Russia’s 2022 invasion.
Alaska’s choice—once Russian territory, now 55 miles from Russia across the Bering Strait—lends historical and strategic weight to the talks, but the summit’s exclusion of Ukraine and bold U.S. overtures have sparked fierce debate over its potential to resolve or exacerbate the conflict.
The summit’s foundation was laid through months of fraught diplomacy, starting with a February 2025 Trump-Putin call that rekindled stalled peace efforts. Trump, who campaigned on ending the war “within 24 hours,” has grown visibly exasperated, posting on Truth Social, “VLADIMIR, STOP!” amid relentless Russian bombardments. His July ultimatum—50 days, then slashed to 10-12—threatened 100% tariffs on nations trading with Russia, with a 50% tariff already imposed on India for Russian oil imports, straining ties with New Delhi.
U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff’s August 6 Moscow visit set the stage, with Trump noting a “good chance” for the summit. U.S. State Department Spokesperson Tammy Bruce, during an August 12 media briefing in Washington, framed the meeting as exploratory, quoting Trump: “I’m going to meet with President Putin. And we’re going to see what he has in mind. And if it’s a fair deal, I’ll reveal it to the European Union leaders, and NATO leaders, and also to Zelenskyy.” Trump pledged to call Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy first “out of respect,” though Zelenskyy’s exclusion from Anchorage has fueled tensions.
Journalists at the briefing pressed Bruce with incisive challenges reflecting the conflict’s grim realities. One, citing Zelenskyy’s August 12 warning of Russian attacks signalling a new offensive, asked, “How does the President hope to get President Putin to… accept a ceasefire?” Bruce deflected, stating, “The President is not calling this a negotiation… this is to see what’s possible,” and lauded Trump’s “astounding” peace record, including Armenia-Azerbaijan and Cambodia-Thailand deals. Another reporter questioned the summit’s optics: “By granting Vladimir Putin—who has been charged with war crimes… a summit with the leader of the United States on U.S. soil, it’s already a victory for Putin, because he is the aggressor.” Bruce countered, “You don’t make peace through performative actions or theatre; you make it by talking to people… The end goal is not performance or perception; it’s getting the job done.” She emphasised Trump’s dismay at civilian deaths, noting his goal to end “the worst” carnage since World War II, citing a poll claiming 88% of Ukrainians support a deal.
Putin’s demands—Ukraine ceding Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, and Crimea, plus abandoning NATO—clash with Zelenskyy’s insistence on territorial integrity and robust security. Trump’s openness to “land swapping” alarms Kyiv and European allies like the European Union’s Kaja Kallas and the United Kingdom’s Keir Starmer, who warn against rewarding aggression. Zelenskyy called outcomes without Ukraine “stillborn.” The Anchorage venue sidesteps Putin’s 2023 International Criminal Court (ICC) war crimes warrant, as the U.S. is not an ICC member, but critics, including Sam Greene of King’s College London, decry it as a symbolic win for Putin. Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy praised the choice, while NATO’s ongoing support for Ukraine and U.S. sanctions, like those on India, underscore the high stakes.
The summit’s critics argue it risks legitimising Putin’s aggression, especially given Russia’s battlefield advances and Zelenskyy’s exclusion. Supporters, however, see Trump’s direct approach as a pragmatic necessity, breaking from years of diplomatic stagnation under prior administrations. Bruce’s defence—“he’s a remarkable achiever… in knowing people and knowing how to get what he wants”—reflects confidence in Trump’s deal-making, yet the absence of concrete U.S. leverage beyond tariffs and NATO’s defensive aid raises doubts. With global eyes on Anchorage, the summit could either forge a fragile path to peace or deepen Western rifts, leaving Ukraine’s fate precariously balanced.
– global bihari bureau
