Putin, Trump meet to discuss fate of Ukraine
japantoday.com -- Friday, August 15, 2025, 5:26:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: Foreign Policy & International Relations, U.S.–Russia Relations, U.S. Elections & Voting Rights
U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin met face-to-face in Alaska on Friday in a high-stakes meeting that could determine whether a ceasefire can be reached in the deadliest war in Europe since World War II.
Ahead of the summit, Trump greeted the Russian leader on a red carpet on the tarmac at a U.S. Air Force base. The two shook hands warmly and touched each other on the arm before riding in Trump's limo to the summit site nearby.
The two leaders sat silently with their respective delegations seated to the side in their first meeting since 2019. They were seated in front of a blue backdrop that had the words, "Pursuing Peace" printed on it.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who was not invited to the talks, and his European allies fear Trump might sell out Ukraine by essentially freezing the conflict with Russia and recognizing - if only informally - Russian control over one-fifth of Ukraine.
Earlier, Trump sought to assuage such concerns as he boarded Air Force One, saying he would let Ukraine decide on any possible territorial swaps. "I'm not here to negotiate for Ukraine, I'm here to get them at a table," he said.
Asked what would make the meeting a success, he told reporters: "I want to see a ceasefire rapidly ... I'm not going to be happy if it's not today ... I want the killing to stop."
Trump was joined in his meeting with Putin by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Trump's special envoy to Russia, Steve Witkoff.
At a subsequent larger, bilateral meeting, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and chief of staff Susie Wiles will also join Trump, press secretary Karoline Leavitt said.
The Russian officials accompanying Putin in the talks with the U.S. delegation will be foreign policy aide Yury Ushakov and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.
Trump hopes a truce in the 3-1/2-year-old war that Putin started will bring peace to the region as well as bolster his credentials as a global peacemaker worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize.
For Putin, the summit is already a big win that he can portray as evidence that years of Western attempts to isolate Russia have unravelled and that Moscow is retaking its rightful place at the top table of international diplomacy.
Trump, who once said he would end Russia's war in Ukraine within 24 hours, conceded on Thursday it had proven a tougher task than he had expected. He said if Friday's talks went well, quickly arranging a second, three-way summit with Zelenskyy would be even more important than his encounter with Putin.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said a three-way summit would be possible if the Alaska talks bore fruit, Interfax news agency reported. Peskov also said Friday's talks could last six to seven hours.
Zelenskyy said the summit should open the way for a "just peace" and three-way talks that included him, but added that Russia was continuing to wage war. A Russian ballistic missile earlier struck Ukraine's Dnipropetrovsk region, killing one person and wounding another.
"It's time to end the war, and the necessary steps must be taken by Russia. We are counting on America," Zelenskyy wrote on the Telegram messaging app.
Trump said before the summit that there is mutual respect between him and Putin.
"He is a smart guy, been doing it for a long time, but so have I ... We get along, there's a good respect level on both sides," Trump said of Putin. He also welcomed Putin's decision to bring businesspeople to Alaska.
"But they're not doing business until we get the war settled," he said, repeating a threat of "economically severe" consequences for Russia if the summit goes badly.
The United States has had internal discussions on using Russian nuclear-powered icebreaker vessels to support the development of gas and LNG projects in Alaska as one of the possible deals to aim for, three sources familiar with the matter told Reuters.
One source acquainted with Kremlin thinking said there were signs 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. NATO has said Ukraine's future is in the alliance.
Russia, whose war economy is showing strain, is vulnerable to further 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.
Putin this week held out the prospect of something else he knows Trump wants - a new nuclear arms control accord to replace the last surviving one, which is due to expire in February.
COMMON GROUND?
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 said he is open to a full ceasefire but that issues of verification must first be sorted out. One compromise could be a truce in the air war.
Zelenskiy has ruled out formally handing Moscow any territory and is also seeking a security guarantee backed by the United States.
Ukrainians who spoke to Reuters in central Kyiv on Friday were not optimistic about the summit.
"Nothing good will happen there, because war is war, it will not end. The territories - we're not going to give anything to anyone," said Tetiana Harkavenko, a 65-year-old cleaner.
© Thomson Reuters 2025.
Sign Our PetitionThe recent meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska represents a significant moment in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, which has seen its share of political maneuvering and military aggression over the past several years. The backdrop of the meeting is crucial to understanding its potential implications. This war, which has been raging since 2014, has not only resulted in tens of thousands of deaths but has also displaced millions and destabilized Eastern Europe. The historical context of Russian-Ukrainian relations, particularly the annexation of Crimea and the support for separatists in eastern Ukraine, complicates any attempts at achieving a sustainable peace.
The optics of the summit—Trump greeting Putin on a red carpet, their warm handshake, and the backdrop proclaiming "Pursuing Peace"—alluded to a performative diplomacy that raises alarm bells, especially among Ukrainians and their allies. The absence of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy from the talks is particularly troubling. It suggests a disregard for Ukraine’s sovereignty and the voices of those most affected by the conflict. Historically, peace negotiations involving third parties have often sidelined the nations actually engaged in conflict, leading to outcomes that do not reflect the needs or rights of the populations involved. This pattern echoes the decisions made in the aftermath of World War I and II, where the voices of the vanquished were often ignored, contributing to lasting discord and resentment.
Trump's comments before the summit reflect a troubling transactional mindset that prioritizes American diplomatic optics over genuine humanitarian concerns. His assertion that he does not want to negotiate for Ukraine raises important questions about the role of the U.S. in international conflicts. The United States, having positioned itself as a champion of democracy, should be advocating for the self-determination and territorial integrity of nations rather than facilitating discussions that could undermine these principles. The historical precedent of U.S. foreign policy has often been driven by short-term strategic interests, which leads to a pattern of betrayal for allied nations. For those committed to social justice and international solidarity, this meeting underscores the need for accountability and a more principled approach to foreign policy.
The potential for a ceasefire, which Trump emphasized, must be examined critically. Ceasefires can sometimes serve as a means to freeze conflicts without addressing the underlying issues that caused them. In the context of Ukraine, any agreement that acknowledges Russian control over parts of the country without the consent of its government and people could be seen as legitimizing aggression. This notion of peace at any cost is reminiscent of historical moments where the pursuit of tranquility led to the long-term disenfranchisement of vulnerable populations. The voices of those directly affected, especially those in conflict-affected areas who have faced violence and displacement, must be brought to the forefront of any peace process.
The meeting also presents an opportunity to draw connections between international conflicts and domestic social struggles. The parallels between foreign policy that disregards the voices of the impacted and domestic policies that sideline marginalized communities are stark. Just as the people of Ukraine deserve a say in their fate, marginalized groups within the U.S. demand a seat at the table in discussions about policies that impact their lives. It is essential for advocates for social justice to push for a foreign policy that champions human rights and the dignified treatment of all nations and peoples. Engaging in these conversations can remind us that the fight for justice transcends borders and is rooted in the same principles of equity and respect for sovereignty that should guide all international relations.
In summary, the meeting between Trump and Putin raises important questions about the future of Ukraine and the role of major powers in shaping that future. The historical context of the conflict, the implications of sidelining Ukrainian leadership, and the broader lessons about the need for inclusive and principled diplomacy all warrant thoughtful consideration. As advocates for justice, it is crucial to analyze these events through a lens that prioritizes human dignity and self-determination, while also drawing connections to ongoing struggles for equity and representation at home. The outcomes of such high-stakes meetings will have lasting effects, not only on international relations but also on the principles that guide our collective pursuit of justice.
The recent meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska has reignited discussions about the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, a situation marked by significant historical and political nuances. The backdrop of this meeting is critical; Ukraine has endured a brutal war since 2014, largely instigated by Russian aggression following the annexation of Crimea. This conflict is not simply a territorial dispute; it is emblematic of broader geopolitical tensions between Russia and the West, raising questions about sovereignty, democracy, and the balance of power in Europe. The outcome of such high-stakes meetings could have profound implications for not only the immediate region but for global stability as a whole.
One of the most concerning aspects of the meeting is Trump’s framing of the situation, suggesting that he is not there to negotiate on Ukraine's behalf. This sentiment echoes a troubling historical precedent wherein powerful nations impose solutions without adequately considering the voices of those directly affected. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who was notably absent from the talks, represents a government that is fighting for its very existence. The failure to include him in these discussions risks sidelining the legitimate aspirations of the Ukrainian people and could lead to decisions that compromise Ukraine’s sovereignty. This is reminiscent of past diplomatic efforts where the interests of larger powers overshadowed the rights and needs of smaller nations, often leading to dire consequences.
As citizens and advocates for peace, it is crucial to recognize the agency of Ukraine in this dialogue. The U.S. should not merely act as a mediator but rather as a supporter of Ukraine's right to self-determination. Advocating for a three-way summit that includes Zelenskyy is a vital step toward ensuring that Ukraine’s voice is heard and respected. This can be achieved through grassroots movements, contacting representatives, and urging them to advocate for diplomatic processes that prioritize Ukrainian interests. Furthermore, engaging in discussions about the implications of ignoring a nation’s sovereignty can provide powerful talking points when conversing with those who may support a more isolationist or transactional approach to foreign policy.
The potential for a ceasefire, as articulated by Trump, should not be downplayed; however, it must come with the assurance that it does not lead to a de facto recognition of Russian territorial gains. Any solution should not only aim to halt violence but also address the root causes of the conflict. This involves a commitment to Ukraine’s territorial integrity and a strategy to foster long-term peace and stability. The history of international diplomacy is rife with examples where ceasefires have set the stage for further negotiations, and the U.S. has a moral obligation to ensure that any agreement is just and fair, rather than expedient.
Finally, the summit serves as an illustration of the complexities involved in international diplomacy. It underscores the need for a critical examination of how power dynamics shape the outcomes of such meetings. While the desire for peace is a universal one, the methods employed to achieve it must be scrutinized. The U.S. has a responsibility to promote a foreign policy that is rooted in ethical considerations, addressing not only the immediate desire for stability but also ensuring that the rights of nations like Ukraine are upheld. Engaging in thoughtful discussions about these issues can empower individuals to hold their representatives accountable, advocate for effective policy, and promote a more equitable global landscape.
The recent summit between President Trump and President Putin in Alaska has raised significant concerns regarding the future of Ukraine and global peace efforts. As individuals who care deeply about the implications of this meeting, we can take concrete actions to advocate for a just resolution and ensure that all voices, particularly those of affected nations like Ukraine, are heard. Here’s a detailed list of actions we can take to influence the situation positively.
### Actions to Take
1. **Educate Yourself and Others** - Stay informed about the ongoing situation in Ukraine and the geopolitical implications of U.S.-Russia relations. Share articles and resources on social media and community forums to raise awareness.
2. **Sign Petitions** - **Petition for Support of Ukraine**: Look for online petitions advocating for increased support for Ukraine, such as the one on Change.org titled “Support Ukraine Against Russian Aggression” (search for it). - **Petition Against Military Aid to Russia**: Find a petition that calls for transparency in U.S. foreign policy, especially regarding military aid to Russia, to keep a check on potential conflicts of interest.
3. **Write to Elected Officials** - Contact your local representatives and express your concerns about the recent summit and its implications for Ukraine. Here are examples of how to format your letters: **Contact Information for U.S. Senators:** - **Senator Elizabeth Warren (Massachusetts)** - Email: https://www.warren.senate.gov/contact - Mailing Address: 2400 JFK Federal Building, 15 New Sudbury St., Boston, MA 02203 - **Senator Chuck Schumer (New York)** - Email: https://www.schumer.senate.gov/contact/email-chuck - Mailing Address: 322 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510
**What to Say:** - Express your concern about the potential recognition of Russian control over Ukrainian territory and urge them to support policies that prioritize Ukraine's sovereignty and human rights. - Request that they advocate for a three-way summit including President Zelenskyy to ensure Ukraine's voice is part of the negotiations. - Emphasize the importance of a peaceful resolution and the need for diplomacy over military solutions.
4. **Participate in Local Rallies or Organizations** - Join organizations that advocate for peace and support Ukraine, such as the Ukrainian National Women's League of America or local peace coalitions. - Participate in rallies or events that raise awareness about Ukraine's plight and call for diplomatic efforts.
5. **Support Humanitarian Efforts** - Donate to organizations providing humanitarian aid to Ukraine, such as the International Red Cross or Ukraine's own humanitarian aid organizations. Every contribution helps those affected by the conflict.
6. **Engage with Media** - Write letters to the editor of your local newspapers expressing your views on the summit and the importance of supporting Ukraine. - Engage with journalists covering the peace talks to ensure that the narrative includes critical perspectives on Ukrainian sovereignty and the consequences of appeasement.
7. **Utilize Social Media** - Use platforms like Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook to amplify messages that support Ukraine and criticize any potential compromises that undermine its sovereignty. - Create hashtags that reflect your stance (e.g., #SupportUkraine, #DiplomacyNotWar) and encourage others to use them.
8. **Contact Think Tanks and Advocacy Groups** - Reach out to think tanks or advocacy groups that focus on foreign policy, such as the Center for American Progress or the Brookings Institution, to express your concerns and encourage them to take a stand on this issue.
9. **Engage in Community Dialogues** - Organize or participate in community discussions or forums to talk about the implications of the summit and the importance of a principled stance on international conflicts.
### Conclusion By taking these actions, we can collectively make our voices heard and advocate for the principles of peace, justice, and sovereignty. It is essential that the international community, including grassroots movements, remains vigilant and engaged in the discourse surrounding Ukraine and its future. Let’s harness our collective power to ensure that the outcomes of such high-stakes meetings reflect the values of democracy and human rights.