With just days left before the highly anticipated meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin in Alaska, the war in Ukraine shows no sign of moving toward compromise. Both Moscow and Kyiv are doubling down on their demands, setting the stage for a tense and potentially unproductive encounter.
Moscow’s Hardline Position
The Kremlin has made it clear it will not ease its expectations. Russia continues to insist that territories it has occupied—including Crimea and parts of eastern and southern Ukraine—be recognised as permanently under Russian control.
For Moscow, this is framed as the only acceptable foundation for a ceasefire. Officials close to the Russian side suggest that any deal without such recognition would be seen as a defeat, something the Putin administration is unwilling to risk ahead of a high-profile summit.
Kyiv’s Firm Rejection
In stark contrast, Ukraine’s leadership views these demands as unacceptable. President Volodymyr Zelensky has repeatedly stressed that no Ukrainian land will be surrendered in exchange for peace. For Kyiv, territorial concessions would not only undermine national sovereignty but also embolden future aggression.
Ukrainian officials argue that giving up any part of the country would break both domestic constitutional law and international norms, effectively rewarding military invasion. This position has been echoed by a wide cross-section of Ukraine’s political and military leadership.
Dispute Over Who Sits at the Table
One of the most contentious points ahead of the Alaska talks is whether Ukraine will be directly involved. The original plan appeared to focus on a bilateral meeting between Trump and Putin, leaving Kyiv out of the room. That idea drew sharp criticism from Ukraine and its allies, who insist that no peace agreement can be reached without Ukraine’s active participation.
Although there are signals that a three-way meeting might be possible, there is still no final confirmation. The format will be crucial in determining whether the summit produces meaningful outcomes or devolves into a symbolic handshake moment.
Strategic Risks and Political Calculations
Both sides are entering these talks with clear strategic calculations.
For Russia, pressing its demands before the summit allows it to set the narrative and appear in control of the diplomatic process. A refusal by Ukraine to comply could then be portrayed as Kyiv blocking peace, a narrative aimed at international audiences weary of prolonged conflict.
For Ukraine, maintaining a hard line reassures its own citizens and international partners that it will not bow to pressure. Any appearance of weakness could erode Western support and damage morale at home.
Behind-the-Scenes Maneuvering
In the days leading up to the meeting, informal contacts and backchannel discussions have been taking place. These talks are designed to test the possibility of compromise without the political cost of public concessions. However, insiders describe the mood as one of deep mistrust, with neither side confident that the other will act in good faith once the summit begins.
Points of Disagreement
| Key Issue | Russia’s Position | Ukraine’s Position |
|---|---|---|
| Territorial Control | Annexed regions remain under Russian rule | Full restoration of pre-2014 borders |
| Summit Participation | Bilateral Putin–Trump meeting acceptable | Ukraine must be present |
| Ceasefire Terms | Only after recognition of territorial changes | Only if borders are fully respected |
Stakes for Trump
For Donald Trump, hosting the summit offers both an opportunity and a challenge. On one hand, it positions him as a potential deal-maker capable of addressing one of the world’s most pressing conflicts. On the other, a failed or one-sided agreement could draw criticism at home and abroad.
Observers note that Trump’s personal approach to diplomacy—direct, informal, and deal-oriented—could clash with the rigid positions now on display from both Moscow and Kyiv.
Possible Outcomes
With such starkly opposed views, there are three likely scenarios:
- Symbolic engagement: A meeting heavy on photo opportunities but light on substance.
- Incremental steps: Limited agreements on humanitarian corridors, prisoner exchanges, or economic cooperation.
- Diplomatic breakdown: Talks collapse, leaving the war to grind on and tensions to escalate.
Given the current rhetoric, many analysts consider the first or third scenario more likely than a sweeping peace accord.
Countdown to Alaska
The meeting’s location—remote, symbolic, and strategically neutral—was chosen to signal a fresh start for negotiations. Yet the reality is that both sides remain locked in entrenched positions.
As the countdown to August 15 continues, the question is not just whether a deal can be struck, but whether either leader is willing to risk political capital for genuine compromise. Without a shift in tone or flexibility from at least one side, the summit may serve as a diplomatic spectacle rather than a turning point.
For now, the world watches and waits, wondering whether Alaska will mark the beginning of a breakthrough or simply another missed opportunity in a war that has already reshaped global politics.