Trump will seek to squeeze Ukraine ceasefire deal out of Putin at Alaska summit
wmbdradio.com -- Friday, August 15, 2025, 8:28:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: U.S.–Russia Relations, Foreign Policy & International Relations, Presidential Campaigns
A combination picture shows Russian President Vladimir Putin during a meeting with Arkhangelsk Region Governor Alexander Tsybulsky in Severodvinsk, Arkhangelsk region, Russia July 24, 2025. Sputnik/Alexander Kazakov/Pool via REUTERS, and U.S. President Donald Trump during a swearing-in ceremony for the interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeanine Pirro, at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., May 28, 2025. REUTERS/Leah Millis
MOSCOW (Reuters) -Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin meet at a Cold War-era air force base in Alaska on Friday to discuss a ceasefire deal for Ukraine that the U.S. sees as a possible way to end the deadliest war in Europe since World War Two.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, who was not invited to the talks, and his European allies fear Trump might sell out Ukraine by essentially freezing the conflict and recognizing - if only informally - Russian control over one fifth of Ukraine.
Both Trump and Putin are seeking wins from their first face-to-face talks since Trump returned to the White House.
Trump, who casts the war as a "bloodbath" fraught with escalatory risk, is pressing for a truce in the 3-1/2-year-old war that would bolster his credentials as a global peacemaker worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize.
For Putin, the summit is already a big win as he can use it to say that years of Western attempts to isolate Russia have unravelled and that Moscow has retaken its rightful place at the top table of international diplomacy.
The summit, the first between a U.S. and Russian leader since 2021, will begin at 11 a.m. Alaska time (1900 GMT).
Trump, who once said he would end Russia's war in Ukraine within 24 hours, conceded on Thursday it had proven a tougher nut to crack than he had thought. He said that if Friday's talks went well, quickly setting up a subsequent three-way summit with Zelenskiy would be even more important than his encounter with Putin.
One source acquainted with Kremlin thinking said there were signs that Moscow could be ready to strike a compromise on Ukraine given that Putin understood Russia's economic vulnerability and costs of continuing the war.
Reuters has previously reported that Putin might be willing to freeze the conflict along the front lines, provided there was a legally binding pledge not to enlarge NATO eastwards and to lift some Western sanctions.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, wearing a USSR sweatshirt on his arrival in Alaska, said Moscow never revealed its hand in advance. The Kremlin suggested no documents would be signed at the summit, but praised Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff for laying the groundwork for the meeting.
Ukraine and its European allies were heartened by a call on Wednesday in which they said Trump had agreed Ukraine must be involved in any talks about ceding land. Zelenskiy said Trump had also supported the idea of security guarantees for Kyiv.
Russia, whose war economy is showing signs of strain, is vulnerable to additional U.S. sanctions - and Trump has threatened tariffs on buyers of Russian crude, primarily China and India.
"For Putin, economic problems are secondary to goals, but he understands our vulnerability and costs," the Russian source said.
The day before the summit, Putin held out the prospect of something else he knows Trump wants - a new nuclear arms control agreement to replace the last surviving one, which is due to expire in February next year.
COMMON GROUND?
Trump said on the eve of the summit that he thought Putin would do a deal on Ukraine, but he has blown hot and cold on the chances of a breakthrough. Putin, meanwhile, praised what he called "sincere efforts" by the U.S. to end the war.
The source familiar with Kremlin thinking said it looked as if the two sides had been able to find some common ground.
"Apparently, some terms will be agreed upon... because Trump cannot be refused, and we are not in a position to refuse (due to sanctions pressure)," said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the matter's sensitivity.
Putin has so far voiced stringent conditions for a full ceasefire, but one compromise could be a truce in the air war. Putin has said he is open to a ceasefire but has repeatedly said the issues of verification need to be sorted out first.
Zelenskiy has accused Putin of playing for time to avoid U.S. secondary sanctions and has ruled out formally handing Moscow any territory. Trump has said land transfers could be a possible way of breaking the logjam.
Beyond territory, Ukraine has been clear in talks with Western allies that it needs a security guarantee backed by Washington. It is unclear how that guarantee could work - and what part the U.S. would play in it.
Putin in 2024 stated his demands for stopping the war - the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from the parts of Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions that they still control, an area now of about 21,000 sq km (8,100 sq miles).
Putin also said Kyiv would have to officially notify Moscow that it was abandoning its plans to join NATO, and that it intended to remain neutral and non-aligned.
Ukraine has said these terms are tantamount to asking it to capitulate.
(Reporting by Andrew Osborn and Darya Korsunskaya in Moscow; Writing by Guy Faulconbridge; Editing by Kevin Liffey, Jon Boyle, Frances Kerry and Gareth Jones)
Sign Our PetitionThe recent news surrounding the upcoming summit between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, set against the backdrop of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, reveals deep-seated geopolitical dynamics that echo historical patterns of power and diplomacy. The summit—a meeting between two leaders with a fraught history—brings to the forefront questions of sovereignty, national integrity, and the ethical implications of foreign policy decisions. As discussions unfold about the potential ceasefire in Ukraine, it is vital to analyze not only the immediate ramifications of such a meeting but also the historical context that has shaped the current situation.
Historically, the relationship between the United States and Russia has oscillated between confrontation and cooperation, often exacerbated by the actions of leaders who prioritize personal political gain over the well-being of nations and their people. The Cold War era set a precedent for the U.S. to engage in proxy wars to contain Soviet influence, a strategy that has evolved but remains relevant today. The ongoing war in Ukraine can be viewed as a modern manifestation of these historical tensions, with Russia's aggressive posture following its annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the subsequent support of separatist movements in Eastern Ukraine. The idea that a deal could be brokered without Ukraine's direct involvement raises serious ethical concerns about the legitimacy of such negotiations and the potential for further destabilization in the region.
Amidst Trump’s aspirations for a Nobel Peace Prize and Putin’s desire to reassert Russia’s global standing, the voices of the Ukrainian people are conspicuously sidelined. This omission is not merely a diplomatic oversight; it reflects a broader pattern where the interests of powerful nations often eclipse the sovereignty and rights of smaller states. The notion that Trump might "sell out" Ukraine by formalizing Russia's territorial claims signals a dangerous precedent. It underscores a historical reality: powerful nations frequently make decisions that prioritize their strategic interests, often at the expense of those who are most affected. For Ukrainians, this potential outcome is not just a political game; it represents a profound threat to their national identity and security.
The summit also comes at a time when global perceptions of power dynamics are shifting. The emergence of multipolarity in international relations has prompted countries to reassess their alliances and strategies. The fear expressed by European allies regarding potential concessions to Russia highlights their historical vulnerability to Russian aggression and the ongoing legacy of the Cold War. This anxiety is compounded by the reality that any agreement reached without Ukraine’s participation could undermine the principles of self-determination and international law. Such a move would not only embolden authoritarian regimes but also set a concerning precedent for future negotiations involving territorial integrity.
As this summit approaches, it is crucial for left-wing advocates and peace activists to emphasize the importance of inclusive diplomacy—one that prioritizes the voices of those most impacted by conflict. Engaging in discussions surrounding the rights of nations and the ethics of foreign policy is vital in fostering a more equitable international order. History teaches us that peace is rarely achieved through the sidelining of nations; rather, it is established through dialogue, mutual respect, and a commitment to justice. The potential negotiations that emerge from this summit should serve as a reminder that any viable peace process must be rooted in the principles of sovereignty, respect for human rights, and the collective involvement of the affected nations. By framing the conversation in this way, advocates can effectively challenge narratives that seek to diminish the agency of smaller nations while promoting a more just and humane approach to global diplomacy.
The recent summit between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin in Alaska has reignited concerns about U.S. foreign policy and its implications for global stability, particularly regarding the ongoing war in Ukraine. The backdrop of this meeting cannot be overstated; it is a continuation of a complex geopolitical struggle that has historical roots dating back to the Cold War, when the U.S. and the Soviet Union were embroiled in a battle for ideological supremacy. As Trump seeks a ceasefire deal, it is crucial to critically assess the potential fallout of these discussions, especially considering Ukraine's sovereignty and the long-term implications for European security.
Historically, the U.S.'s relationship with Russia has been fraught with tension and mistrust. The annexation of Crimea in 2014 by Russia, followed by its support for separatist movements in Eastern Ukraine, has led to a protracted conflict that has claimed thousands of lives and displaced millions. Trump's willingness to negotiate directly with Putin, without the involvement of Ukrainian leadership, raises red flags about American commitment to international norms and the principle of self-determination. The exclusion of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy from the discussions is particularly alarming. It suggests a possible disregard for Ukraine's agency and the very real consequences of freezing the conflict, which could lead to a tacit acceptance of Russian territorial gains.
Moreover, the optics of the meeting present a troubling narrative. Trump is attempting to position himself as a global peacemaker, an image he has cultivated throughout his political career. Yet, there is a credible risk that this narrative may overshadow the needs and rights of the Ukrainian people. By prioritizing a quick political victory over the long-term stability of Ukraine, Trump may inadvertently be playing into Putin's hands. The Kremlin's suggestion of a "legally binding pledge" against NATO expansion and lifting sanctions highlights how such negotiations could be leveraged to legitimize Russian aggression. This raises questions about the ethical implications of a ceasefire that may come at the expense of Ukrainian sovereignty and security.
As Americans, we must remain vigilant and proactive in advocating for foreign policies that prioritize human rights and the rule of law. This summit serves as a reminder of the importance of supporting Ukraine—not only in military terms but also through diplomatic channels. We can pressure our representatives in Congress to ensure that any negotiations involving Ukraine include its leadership and reflect the will of its people. Engaging in grassroots movements, supporting organizations that advocate for Ukrainian sovereignty, and promoting awareness of the complexities of U.S.-Russia relations are vital steps we can take to advocate for a more just and equitable resolution to this conflict.
Educational outreach is another essential tool in our arsenal. By fostering informed discussions around the implications of the U.S.'s foreign policy choices, we can help bridge the gap between varying political perspectives. This is particularly necessary when countering narratives that may seek to downplay the significance of Ukraine's sovereignty or the consequences of appeasing Russia. By emphasizing the historical context of U.S.-Russia relations and the importance of upholding international law, we can equip ourselves and others with the necessary arguments to challenge any complacency regarding the situation in Ukraine. In doing so, we reaffirm our commitment to a world where diplomacy does not come at the expense of human rights and national integrity.
Ultimately, the summit between Trump and Putin is not just a moment in time; it represents a pivotal point in a larger narrative about power, control, and the moral obligations of nations. As we reflect on the implications of this meeting, let us commit to advocating for policies that promote peace, justice, and the protection of nations' rights to self-determination. Only through sustained engagement and informed dialogue can we hope to shape a more equitable future for Ukraine and the broader international community.
Analyzing the complexities presented in the article about the upcoming summit between Trump and Putin, there are several actionable steps individuals can take to advocate for a peaceful resolution in Ukraine, while ensuring that the rights and sovereignty of the Ukrainian people are prioritized.
### Personal Actions to Take
1. **Educate Yourself and Others:** - Stay informed about the Ukraine conflict and the implications of any ceasefire deal. Share articles, documentaries, and reliable news sources with your network to raise awareness.
2. **Engage in Conversations:** - Start discussions in your community, workplace, or online about the importance of Ukraine's sovereignty and the potential consequences of compromising with Russia.
3. **Support Local and National Organizations:** - Donate to or volunteer with organizations that support Ukrainian refugees and provide humanitarian aid. Examples include: - *Razom for Ukraine* (razomforukraine.org) - *Ukrainian National Women's League of America* (unwla.org)
### Specific Actions
1. **Petitions:** - **Sign Petitions:** Websites like Change.org and Care2 have active petitions regarding the Ukraine conflict. Search for petitions advocating for the protection of Ukraine’s sovereignty and a just peace process. - **Example Petition:** “Protect Ukraine's Sovereignty” on Change.org. 2. **Contacting Political Representatives:** - Write to your local and national representatives to express your views on U.S. foreign policy towards Ukraine. You can find your representatives' contact information on [congress.gov](https://www.congress.gov/). - Example representatives to contact might include: - **Senator Chuck Schumer** (NY) Email: schumer.senate.gov/contact Mailing Address: 322 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510 - **Representative Nancy Pelosi** (CA) Email: pelosi.house.gov/contact Mailing Address: 1236 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
3. **Writing Letters to the Editor:** - Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper expressing your concerns about the upcoming summit and the need to prioritize Ukrainian sovereignty over political maneuvering.
### What to Say
1. **In Emails and Letters:** - Emphasize the need for diplomatic solutions that prioritize Ukraine’s territorial integrity and the voices of its leaders. - Example message: “I urge you to advocate for a peace process that respects Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. Any agreements that compromise Ukraine’s rights could have dire consequences for democracy and human rights in the region.”
2. **In Petitions:** - Use clear, concise language: “We call on the U.S. government to ensure that Ukraine is an active participant in any discussions regarding its future. We reject any agreements that would cede Ukrainian territory to Russia.”
### Community Engagement
1. **Organize or Attend Rallies:** - Participate in or organize events advocating for Ukraine. Platforms like Facebook Events or local community boards can be great for finding or promoting these gatherings.
2. **Workshops and Discussions:** - Host or attend discussions in your community about the significance of the Ukraine conflict and how it affects global security, emphasizing the role of international diplomacy.
By taking these steps, individuals can play an active role in shaping the narrative and outcomes related to the Ukraine conflict, ensuring that the focus remains on diplomacy that respects the rights and sovereignty of Ukraine.