Trump and Putin start 'high-stakes' in-person meeting to end Russia-Ukraine war
denvergazette.com -- Friday, August 15, 2025, 5:58:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: Foreign Policy & International Relations, U.S.–Russia Relations, U.S. Elections & Voting Rights
ANCHORAGE, Alaska -- President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin have started their meeting at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, Alaska, their first face-to-face encounter of Trump's second administration and the first between a U.S. president and Putin since he embarked on his 3 1/2-year war against Ukraine.
Putin was welcomed by a show of U.S. military might as two B-2 bombers were flown into the base, similar to the jets used to strike Iran's nuclear sites in Operation Midnight Hammer.
Trump arrived first in Alaska and waited aboard Air Force One to deplane until Putin touched down in his own aircraft. At 11:08 a.m. local time, the pair stepped down onto two separate red carpets rolled out on the tarmac to a T-intersection, where they extended a warm greeting of a prolonged handshake and smiles to one another.
Trump and Putin then walked down another red carpet to a podium that read "Alaska 2025" as a flyover of military planes, B-2s, F-22s, and F-35s, passed overhead. As they stood side-by-side for photographs, Putin pretended not to hear a reporter's question about whether he would commit to no longer killing civilians, tapping his ear and shrugging his shoulders instead.
The presidents then departed together in Trump's presidential limousine called The Beast with only a driver and a U.S. Secret Service agent, no staff, for the meeting site.
The Friday meeting is poised to be expanded for lunch before the prospect of a press conference in the afternoon. The previously planned one-on-one meeting is now a three-on-three meeting as Trump is accompanied by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and special envoy Steve Witkoff, and Putin by foreign policy aide Yury Ushakov and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.
"HIGH STAKES!!!" Trump wrote on Truth Social before leaving the White House after spending the week trying to manage expectations.
Trump even told Fox News Radio on Thursday that there was a 25% chance that his meeting with Putin would be unsuccessful.
Aboard Air Force One en route to Alaska, Trump told reporters he would discuss Russia-Ukraine land swaps with Putin, despite telling Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and NATO allies this week during a series of phone calls that he would prioritize talk of a ceasefire as he positions himself for a Nobel Peace Prize. Zelensky has appeared open to a conversation about territory exchanges along the current contact line, but not areas Putin has allegedly annexed.
"They'll be discussed, but I've got to let Ukraine make that decision," Trump said. "I'm not here to negotiate for Ukraine. I'm here to get them at a table."
Trump also provided more information regarding his approach to security guarantees, for which Ukraine has advocated, considering Russia's record of not respecting ceasefires.
"Not in the form of NATO because there are certain things that aren't going to happen -- but along with Europe, there's a possibility of that," the president said.
He quipped, "I'm not doing this for my health. I don't need it. I'd like to focus on our country -- but I'm doing this to save a lot of lives."
Aside from Ukraine, Putin has been accompanied to the United States, his first trip here since 2015, by business leaders as the Russians posture concerning a possible minerals deal in response to Trump's repeated threats of "very severe consequences," including primary and secondary sanctions, if Putin does not pursue peace. In addition, Putin hopes to raise a new nuclear arms treaty with Trump.
Meanwhile, Trump has indicated he may mention Russia's hack of a U.S. federal court database after accusations that Putin meddled in the 2016 election to help Trump.
Former U.S. Ambassador to Poland Daniel Fried told the Washington Examiner that Putin could distract Trump from a peace deal with Ukraine with an economic agreement with Russia.
"Well, he could try," the Atlantic Council distinguished fellow and former State Department coordinator for sanctions policy said. "If you're coming up with a list of things to throw out there to distract Trump, that would be one of them. And then the question is, will Trump be focused enough to brush that aside and shake up Putin? If he does that, this could be a success, but it's a big if."
On Air Force One, Trump downplayed the importance of an economic deal, contending "we're not doing business until we get the war settled," particularly with Russia's recent advances on the battlefield.
"He thinks it gives him strength in negotiating," he said. "I think it hurts him. But I'll be talking to him about it later."
A White House official told the Washington Examiner that "POTUS will determine what is possible in the meeting."
Friday's meeting represents a pivotal moment in the war as Zelensky deals with a U.S. that has been less supportive than in the past, especially after the clash between him, Trump, and Vice President JD Vance in the Oval Office in February, though Trump last month reversed a decision to stop deploying military aid to Ukraine.
Zelensky himself is under pressure at home related to the war and government transparency reforms, experiencing protests last time for the first time during his presidency.
For Peter Slezkine, the Stimson Center's Russia program director, there is "nothing magical or mysterious" about Trump and Putin's relationship.
"They've always seemed to get along fairly well -- on the phone and in person," Slezkine told the Washington Examiner. "But as we've seen in the past, compatibility between their worldviews is not sufficient, on its own, to overcome the conflict between their two countries."
Slezkine suggested there is a "chance" that Putin might agree to pause airstrikes on Ukraine if Zelensky agrees to the same with Russia, which "Trump could sell this as a first step toward an eventual peace."
"If Trump takes a ceasefire-or-else approach, then the meeting might turn into a fiasco," he said. "Putin will not accept an immediate unconditional ceasefire. He believes that he possesses the military advantage and will not surrender it unless he gains something substantial in return."
The threat of additional American sanctions is unlikely to change this calculus, according to Slezkine.
"Russia believes that American leverage against China and India is limited, and the Kremlin remains confident in its ability to find markets for its energy and sources of key inputs," Slezkine said. "A failed American ultimatum in Alaska may lead to a long-lasting war -- or a Ukrainian collapse."
He added, "An amicable meeting that ends with an anodyne declaration of both sides' desire for peace should be considered a success if it leads to further contact at the working group level. The best-case scenario would be a compromise between the two sides that could then be ironed out and implemented in a subsequent trilateral meeting with Zelensky."
Read more from the Washington Examiner on the Trump-Putin meeting:
TRUMP LOOKS TO APPLY LESSONS FROM HELSINKI IN FACE-TO-FACE WITH PUTIN TRUMP-PUTIN SUMMIT: THE REALITY OF WHERE THINGS STAND ON THE UKRAINE BATTLEFIELD TRUMP THREATENS 'SEVERE' CONSEQUENCES FOR PUTIN: 'NOT DOING THIS FOR MY HEALTH'
TRUMP DODGES QUESTIONS ON RARE EARTH MINERALS DEAL FOR PUTIN'S PEACE EUROPEAN LEADERS WARY THAT TRUMP-PUTIN SUMMIT COULD END WITH LAND CONCESSIONS TRUMP SAYS 'NEXT MEETING' AFTER PUTIN SUMMIT WILL INVOLVE ZELENSKY ZELENSKY WARNS PUTIN IS PREPARING FOR MORE WAR, NOT PEACE, AHEAD OF TRUMP MEETING TRUMP'S RUSSIA SANCTION DEADLINE COMES AND GOES WITH A WHIMPER
Sign Our PetitionThe recent meeting between former President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin marks a significant moment in the ongoing geopolitical landscape, particularly in the context of the Russia-Ukraine war, which has escalated dramatically since its onset in 2022. The backdrop of this meeting is laden with historical complexities, as the relationship between the United States and Russia has been fraught with tension, shaped by decades of ideological rivalry, nuclear arms races, and territorial conflicts. This meeting, taking place in Anchorage, Alaska, is a stark reminder of the overarching power dynamics that continue to affect global peace and stability. It serves as a pivotal point for activists and advocates of social justice, as it underscores the necessity for a critical examination of U.S. foreign policy and its implications for vulnerable populations.
Historically, the U.S. has vacillated between confrontation and cooperation with Russia, a pattern that has often led to detrimental consequences for countries caught in the crossfire, particularly those in Eastern Europe. The Ukraine crisis is emblematic of this larger geopolitical struggle; it is not merely a territorial dispute but a clash of imperial ambitions, where the voices of ordinary Ukrainians and their right to self-determination are frequently sidelined. The meeting between Trump and Putin, framed by military displays of power, signals a return to a transactional approach to diplomacy, which has consistently prioritized national interests over humanitarian considerations. This becomes painfully evident when observing the human toll of the conflict, with civilian casualties and displacement reaching staggering numbers.
Moreover, Trump's approach of discussing “land swaps” and prioritizing negotiations around ceasefires raises important questions about the role of external powers in resolving conflicts. While the idea of peace talks is crucial, the manner in which these discussions unfold must not dismiss the agency of the Ukrainian people. Historically, interventions by major powers have often led to the imposition of solutions that prioritize political expediency over justice and equity. This echo of imperialism is particularly relevant when considering past U.S. interventions in Latin America and the Middle East, where purported aims of democracy and stability were often undermined by the realities of exploitation and oppression. Thus, it is essential for activists to advocate for a peace process that genuinely involves the voices of those most affected by the conflict, rather than allowing powerful leaders to dictate terms in their own interests.
Furthermore, the optics of the meeting—complete with military displays and carefully orchestrated photo opportunities—serve as a reminder of the performative nature of modern diplomacy. The juxtaposition of military might with discussions of peace signals an unsettling message: that the resolution of human crises is often secondary to the display of power. This carries profound implications for social movements that seek to address systemic issues such as militarism, imperialism, and the commodification of human lives. The spectacle of the meeting should prompt advocates to engage in critical discussions about disarmament, the reduction of military spending, and the prioritization of diplomatic solutions that emphasize human rights and the protection of civilians.
As the conversation around the Russia-Ukraine conflict continues, it is vital for progressives to connect these global events to local struggles for justice. The ongoing crises of displacement, economic inequality, and racial injustice at home can be viewed through the lens of international relations. The consequences of war, often borne by the most marginalized, highlight the interconnectedness of social justice movements. Activists must leverage the visibility of high-stakes meetings like Trump and Putin's to galvanize support for policies that advocate for peace, equity, and justice, both domestically and globally. Such efforts can help counterbalance the narratives that frame militaristic approaches as necessary for security, instead centering human dignity and the fundamental rights of all people.
In conclusion, the meeting in Alaska represents a critical junction in the discourse surrounding the Russia-Ukraine war and U.S.-Russia relations. For those engaged in advocacy for social justice, it is essential to recognize the broader implications of these high-profile encounters and the historical patterns that inform them. The focus must remain on the voices of those directly affected by conflict, advocating for a peace process that prioritizes human rights and self-determination. As society grapples with the legacies of militarism and imperialism, there is an urgent need for collective action that transcends borders and seeks to redefine notions of security and justice in a way that uplifts marginalized communities both at home and abroad.
The geopolitical landscape surrounding the Russia-Ukraine war has become a focal point of international relations and domestic politics in the United States. The recent meeting between President Trump and President Putin, occurring in the context of escalating tensions and humanitarian crises, highlights the complexities of diplomacy when it intersects with political ambition. Historically, the relationship between the U.S. and Russia has been fraught with conflict, stemming from decades of Cold War tensions and more recent geopolitical maneuvers. Trump's approach, characterized by personal diplomacy and an apparent affinity for authoritarian leaders, raises questions not only about the efficacy of his diplomatic strategy but also about the underlying moral implications of engaging with a regime responsible for widespread human rights violations.
In analyzing Trump's interactions with Putin, it is crucial to understand the historical context of U.S.-Russia relations. The annexation of Crimea in 2014 marked a significant turning point, leading to sanctions against Russia and a shift in NATO's posture towards Eastern Europe. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has resulted in significant loss of life and displacement, while Putin’s regime has been accused of war crimes against civilians. Thus, the optics of Trump greeting Putin with a warm handshake, accompanied by a display of military might, serves to normalize a relationship that should be scrutinized and questioned. It raises critical ethical concerns about the United States' role in promoting democratic values versus engaging in realpolitik that disregards humanitarian considerations.
Moreover, Trump's statement regarding land swaps and ceasefire negotiations showcases a troubling willingness to prioritize political optics over the genuine needs and desires of the Ukrainian people. While he claims to advocate for Ukrainian sovereignty by stating he will "let Ukraine make that decision," the very nature of negotiating territorial integrity with an aggressor like Putin undermines Ukraine's standing. This approach reflects a broader trend where powerful nations engage in negotiations that affect smaller nations without their full participation, often sidelining the voices of those most affected by the conflict. Such dynamics must be challenged and publicly critiqued, as they perpetuate a cycle of power imbalance in international relations.
As concerned citizens and advocates for a more just world, it is imperative to engage in dialogue that challenges the normalization of authoritarianism. Americans can take action by advocating for policies that prioritize human rights and the principles of self-determination over political expediency. Grassroots movements can pressure elected officials to uphold a foreign policy that reflects ethical considerations, such as humanitarian aid for Ukraine and support for international legal mechanisms that hold aggressors accountable. Engaging in community discussions, writing to representatives, and leveraging social media to raise awareness can create a collective voice that demands a more principled stance from policymakers.
Finally, education plays a crucial role in shaping public discourse on foreign policy. It is vital to inform ourselves and others about the historical and political complexities of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Resources that shed light on the impact of U.S. foreign policy in Eastern Europe, the consequences of military intervention, and the importance of international law can empower individuals to engage more thoughtfully with this issue. By fostering informed conversations, we can equip ourselves with the knowledge necessary to challenge the narratives often propagated by those who prioritize national interests over human rights. Ultimately, our collective action and informed engagement can help pave the way for a more just and equitable international order.
Analyzing the meeting between Trump and Putin from a proactive standpoint invites us to consider various ways we can engage to influence outcomes in global affairs, particularly concerning the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Here are several ideas on how individuals can take action:
### Personal Actions to Consider
1. **Educate Yourself and Others**: - Stay informed about the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the implications of high-level meetings between leaders. Share information through community groups, social media, and local events. - Suggested resources include reputable news outlets, podcasts, and books focusing on international relations and conflict resolution.
2. **Engage with Elected Officials**: - Write to your congressional representatives to express your views on U.S. foreign policy regarding Russia and Ukraine. - **Who to Write To**: - Your local Senate and House representatives. You can find their contact information on [congress.gov](https://www.congress.gov/). - Example: - Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) - Email: senator_warren@warren.senate.gov - Mailing address: 2400 JFK Federal Building, 15 New Sudbury Street, Boston, MA 02203 - Representative Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) - Email: pressley.house.gov/contact - Mailing address: 2400 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
3. **Petition for Change**: - Create or sign petitions that advocate for a strong U.S. stance on supporting Ukraine and ensuring humanitarian aid. - **Real-World Example**: - Visit platforms like [Change.org](https://www.change.org/) or [MoveOn.org](https://front.moveon.org/) to find existing petitions or create one that pushes for diplomatic resolutions and humanitarian support.
4. **Support Organizations Working in Ukraine**: - Donate to or volunteer with organizations providing assistance to those affected by the war, such as: - **Doctors Without Borders**: [donate.msf.org](https://donate.msf.org) - **UNICEF**: [unicef.org](https://www.unicef.org) - **International Rescue Committee**: [rescue.org](https://www.rescue.org)
5. **Raise Awareness on Social Media**: - Use your platforms to share information about the ongoing conflict and advocate for peace initiatives. Tag relevant organizations and use hashtags to reach a broader audience.
6. **Participate in Local Activism**: - Join or organize local groups focused on peace and international engagement. Attend town hall meetings or community discussions to voice concerns about military actions and advocate for diplomacy.
7. **Engage in Peaceful Protests or Rallies**: - Participate in or organize peaceful demonstrations that call for an end to the war and advocate for diplomatic solutions. Check local event listings or social media groups for upcoming events.
### What to Say
When reaching out to officials or participating in discussions, consider using the following points:
- **Support for Ukraine**: Emphasize the importance of U.S. support for Ukraine and the need for a clear stance against aggression. - **Call for Diplomacy**: Advocate for diplomatic efforts to ensure a ceasefire and long-term peace negotiations, rather than territorial concessions that undermine Ukrainian sovereignty. - **Humanitarian Concerns**: Stress the necessity of humanitarian aid for civilians affected by the conflict and the responsibility of the U.S. to uphold human rights. - **Engagement with Allies**: Encourage collaboration with NATO and European allies to present a united front on security guarantees for Ukraine.
By taking these steps, individuals can contribute to a broader movement advocating for peace and support for Ukraine while holding leaders accountable for their actions during critical diplomatic engagements.