When Putin's jet refuelled in Alaska, the Russians offered to pay in cash
abc.net.au -- Sunday, August 17, 2025, 6:29:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: Foreign Policy & International Relations, U.S.–Russia Relations, U.S.–NATO Relations
Special envoy Steve Witkoff said he did believe it was possible to reach a point where a meeting between Mr Putin, Mr Zelenskyy and US President Donald Trump could be organised.
Vladimir Putin and his Russian delegation may have been welcomed on United States soil, but sanctions meant that when it came time to pay for the refuelling of their aircraft, they offered to pay in cash.
Speaking about the summit and the current state of negotiations, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio defended Donald Trump's decision to not impose further sanctions on Russia despite Mr Putin not agreeing to a ceasefire.
"Every single sanction that was in place on the day he took over remains and the impact of all those sanctions remains," Mr Rubio told NBC.
"They face consequences every single day, but the bottom line is that has not altered the direction of this war. That doesn't mean those sanctions were inappropriate, it means it hasn't altered the outcome of it."
Mr Putin and his team were on the ground in Alaska for about five hours on Friday, and departed shortly after a joint press conference between the Russian president and Mr Trump.
The US president said "no deal" was done, but yesterday it was revealed that there is an offer from Russia on the table and some reporting suggested Mr Trump was leaning on Ukraine to consider it.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy will be in Washington on Monday, local time, to have his own meeting with Mr Trump.
Mr Zelenskyy and European leaders have pressed the United States to consider further sanctions on Russia, but today Mr Rubio said that was not the current strategy.
"Those options remain to the president. The minute he takes those steps, all talks stop. The minute we take those steps, there is no-one left in the world to go talk to the Russians and try and get them to the table to reach a peace agreement," he said.
"We may very well end up in that place. I hope not because that means that peace talks failed."
Speaking to the Sunday morning political programs in the United States, Mr Rubio and special envoy Steve Witkoff were repeatedly asked what concessions Russia might be willing to make without the threat of new sanctions.
Both men were beside Mr Trump as he met with Mr Putin on Friday as part of the three-on-three discussion. And today, both suggested there would have to be compromise on both sides.
"We all the know the elements of such a deal: there has to be talk about what the territories are going to look like ... there has to be talk about Ukraine's legitimate desire for security in the long term, to make sure they don't get invaded again, there has to be talk about how Ukraine is rebuilt," Mr Rubio told NBC.
"If there is going to be a deal, each side is going to have to give up on something."
What concessions are Russia considering?
The current state of negotiations suggest the most significant area of compromise right now is around security guarantees, and how Ukraine deters Russia after any peace agreement is signed.
Mr Witkoff, who has also travelled to Moscow several times to discuss its war in Ukraine, said it was now possible that the US could provide a NATO-like guarantee for Ukraine.
"We were able to win the following concession, that the United States could offer Article 5-like protection ... which was the first time we had ever heard the Russians agree to that," Mr Witkoff told CNN.
Mr Witkoff was referring to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which regards any attack against one of its 32 members as an attack on all.
He suggested the US would play that role instead and work as a security guarantee offered to Ukraine in lieu of NATO membership, which Mr Putin has ruled out.
He said the American delegation in Alaska did not think they "were anywhere close" to achieving that in the meeting with Russia.
Mr Witkoff characterised it as a "concession".
He said as well as the NATO-like guarantee, Russia also agreed to "legislative enshrinement in the Russian Federation" to not invade Ukraine again or other European nations.
It is worth noting that in 2022, eight months after Russia launched its invasion, its parliament rubber-stamped legislation to designate four regions of Ukraine as Russia under its constitution. In that sense, it does not consider those regions a different nation.
In a meeting of European leaders and Mr Zelenskyy on Sunday, local time, security guarantees were discussed, with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen saying, "Ukraine must become a steel porcupine, indigestible for potential invaders."
'The crux of the deal'
Giving further insight into the status of the negotiations with Russia, Mr Witkoff said the "crux of the deal" at this point, was where territory lines could be drawn.
There is no appetite from Ukraine for its borders to be redrawn and its territory to be ceded to Russia, but Mr Witkoff said this would be a focus of the discussions in the White House tomorrow.
He gave some insight into where that conversation may begin.
"The fundamental issue, which is some sort of land swap, which is obviously ultimately in the control of the Ukrainians, that could not have been discussed at that meeting. We intend to discuss it on Monday," he said.
There has been reporting in the United States that Mr Trump is encouraging Mr Zelenskyy to strike a deal with Russia that would see his nation lose some, if not all, of the Donbass.
Mr Witkoff said that was "the crux of the deal".
"There are five regions, [that have] always in our view has been the crux of the deal. Those five regions the Russians have previously said they wanted it at the administrative lines. The administrative lines are the actual legal boundary lines as compared to the contact lines," he said.
"The Russians made some concessions at the table with regard to all five of those regions.
"There is an important discussion to be had with regard to Donetsk and what would happen there and that discussion is going to specifically be detailed on Monday [local time] when president Zelenskyy arrives with his delegation and other European leaders."
It is likely the regions he is referring to are Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, Zaporizhzhia and Crimea.
After his meeting with European leaders on Sunday, local time, Mr Zelenskyy said: "Everyone agrees that the borders of states should not be changed by force."
"Everyone supports that key issues should be resolved with the participation of Ukraine in a trilateral format: Ukraine, the United States, the Russian leader."
Mr Witkoff said it was his view that the negotiations would get to a point where the three leaders, Mr Trump, Mr Zelenskyy and Mr Putin could meet.
There has been no indication from Mr Putin that he has changed his position on that.
Sign Our PetitionThe recent news surrounding Vladimir Putin's jet refueling in Alaska and the ensuing diplomatic discussions involving U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy offers a troubling glimpse into the complexities of international relations, particularly regarding the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. At first glance, this scenario might seem like a standard diplomatic engagement; however, it reveals deeper historical and political ramifications that highlight the necessity for a more principled approach to U.S. foreign policy, especially in relation to Russia.
Historically, the U.S. has employed sanctions as a tool to deter aggressive actions by Russia, particularly following its annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its military involvement in eastern Ukraine. These sanctions aimed to apply economic pressure on Russia to change its behavior. However, the recent comments by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, suggesting that existing sanctions have not shifted the trajectory of the war, are indicative of a broader issue. The reality is that sanctions alone may not yield the desired outcome of peace or stability. They often disproportionately affect ordinary citizens rather than political elites, leading to a cycle of suffering that can further fuel anti-Western sentiment in regions already destabilized by conflict. The question of who bears the brunt of these policies must be considered seriously.
Moreover, the notion of negotiating peace requires a nuanced understanding of the power dynamics at play. The recent remarks from Rubio and special envoy Steve Witkoff that both sides must be willing to compromise raises essential questions about what concessions are on the table and who is being asked to sacrifice. For Ukrainians, the stakes are incredibly high; they are not merely negotiating territorial disputes but are also grappling with their national identity and sovereignty. The idea that Ukraine should give up any territory in exchange for a semblance of peace is not just a political maneuver; it is a potential erasure of the sacrifices made by those who have fought against aggression to maintain their country’s integrity. Historical precedents exist, such as the post-World War I Treaties, which often ignored the voices of the people directly affected, resulting in long-term instability.
The mention of cash payments for refueling also speaks volumes about the state of current international relations. It reflects a transactional view of diplomacy that often sidelines the moral and ethical imperatives that should underpin foreign policy. Engaging with a regime known for human rights abuses and military aggression cannot simply be reduced to economic transactions. This perspective continues to resonate with ongoing social struggles worldwide, where the consequences of governmental decisions directly impact marginalized communities. As citizens of a global society, we need to advocate for a foreign policy that emphasizes human rights and social justice over mere geopolitical expedience.
Furthermore, the emphasis on maintaining dialogue with Russia, even in light of their transgressions, raises critical questions about the United States' role as a global leader. While it is essential to keep channels of communication open, it is equally important to set clear boundaries and uphold international norms. Sanctioning Russia while simultaneously engaging with its leaders in a seemingly casual manner dilutes the seriousness of U.S. foreign policy. For citizens and activists alike, it is crucial to demand accountability not just from foreign powers but also from our own government, urging a foreign policy that does not shy away from moral clarity in the face of aggression.
In conclusion, the complexities surrounding the recent summit and the ongoing discussions about peace in Ukraine illuminate the pressing need for a reevaluation of U.S. foreign policy, particularly in its dealings with Russia. Historical context, the necessity of prioritizing human rights, and the implications of economic measures must be at the forefront of any diplomatic strategy. For advocates and concerned citizens, these developments serve as a reminder of the importance of engaging in informed discussions about international relations, pushing for policies that genuinely seek to build lasting peace rather than merely managing conflicts through superficial transactions and compromises.
The recent news surrounding the meeting between President Trump, Vladimir Putin, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy raises critical questions about U.S. foreign policy, the efficacy of sanctions, and the geopolitical landscape of Eastern Europe. This scenario underscores the intricate web of international relations that often leaves ordinary citizens feeling powerless. Yet, as concerned Americans, it is essential to engage in dialogue, advocate for principled foreign policy, and hold our leaders accountable—not merely for the decisions made in the White House but for their implications on democracy, human rights, and global stability.
Historically, the United States has maintained a complex relationship with Russia, characterized by periods of both collaboration and intense rivalry. The current conflict in Ukraine, which has roots in a long history of territorial disputes and national identity crises, has significantly strained U.S.-Russia relations. Sanctions were initially introduced to deter Russian aggression, yet the article suggests that these measures have not altered Russia's course of action, raising questions about their effectiveness. This scenario invites a deeper examination of the role of punitive economic measures and their ability to influence behavior on the global stage. As history has shown, sanctions can cripple economies, but they often fail to yield desired political outcomes, especially in situations where national pride and strategic interests are at stake.
As citizens, we must demand a more nuanced approach to foreign policy that prioritizes dialogue over aggression. The notion that the U.S. should consider lifting or refraining from imposing further sanctions as a means to facilitate peace talks is troubling. It reflects a willingness to appease a regime that has consistently undermined democratic principles both domestically and abroad. Engaging in open conversations about the implications of such decisions is crucial. We can organize community forums, write letters to our representatives, and utilize social media platforms to advocate for a robust response to authoritarian regimes that disregard international norms. By amplifying our voices, we can foster a broader discussion about the need for a principled stance against aggression, one that does not rely solely on economic leverage but also integrates diplomatic strategies that prioritize human rights and self-determination.
Furthermore, the remarks made by Secretary of State Marco Rubio emphasize a critical point: the need for compromise in negotiations. However, the nature of that compromise is vital. It is essential to recognize that conceding to a regime that has shown little regard for international law and the sovereignty of other nations can set a dangerous precedent. It sends a message that aggression may be tolerated if it leads to short-term negotiations. As Americans, we can engage in advocacy that holds our leaders accountable for ensuring that any discussions prioritize the dignity and security of the Ukrainian people. This might involve pushing for international coalitions that reaffirm our commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty, advocating for humanitarian aid, and supporting initiatives aimed at rebuilding war-torn regions without compromising on the fundamental rights of those affected.
Lastly, we must educate ourselves and our communities about these geopolitical dynamics. Understanding the historical context and the implications of current policies is crucial for informed discourse. By equipping ourselves with knowledge, we can better articulate our positions and engage constructively with those who may hold opposing views. Hosting educational workshops, creating informative online content, and participating in local advocacy groups are all ways to foster a more informed citizenry. These actions can contribute to a culture of accountability and awareness, ultimately influencing the conversation around U.S. foreign policy in a direction that values justice, security, and human rights for all nations involved.
In conclusion, the meeting between Trump, Putin, and Zelenskyy serves as a reminder of the complexities of international relations and the challenges of navigating peace in a world fraught with conflict. As Americans, it is our responsibility to engage critically with the policies that shape our global standing and to advocate for a foreign policy rooted in dignity, respect, and the pursuit of justice. Through collective action, informed dialogue, and unwavering commitment to democratic principles, we can work towards a more just world that prioritizes the well-being of all people, irrespective of their nationality.
To respond effectively to the situation described in the article, individuals can take a variety of actions that advocate for peace, uphold human rights, and promote accountability for aggressors. Here’s a detailed list of ideas and actions that can be pursued:
### 1. **Advocacy for Sanctions** - **Support the Imposition of Further Sanctions on Russia**: Write to your congressional representatives urging them to advocate for stronger sanctions against Russia in response to its military actions. - **Who to contact**: Your local Senators and House Representative. - **Example Contacts**: - **Senator Chuck Schumer**: Email: schumer.senate.gov/contact/email-chuck, Phone: (202) 224-6542 - **Senator Kirsten Gillibrand**: Email: gillibrand.senate.gov/contact/contact-kirsten, Phone: (202) 224-4451 - **Your House Representative**: Find contact information at house.gov. - **What to say**: “I urge you to support immediate and enhanced sanctions against Russia for its continued aggression towards Ukraine. We must stand with Ukraine and promote international peace and security.”
### 2. **Support Humanitarian Efforts** - **Donate to Organizations Supporting Ukraine**: Contribute to NGOs providing humanitarian aid to those affected by the conflict. - **Examples**: - **UNICEF**: [donate.unicef.org](https://donate.unicef.org) - **Doctors Without Borders**: [donate.doctorswithoutborders.org](https://donate.doctorswithoutborders.org) - **What to say**: “I support your mission to provide aid to those in need due to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Your efforts are crucial for the survival and dignity of the affected population.”
### 3. **Public Awareness and Education** - **Start or Join a Local Advocacy Group**: Organize community meetings to raise awareness about the conflict and discuss ways to support Ukraine. - **Host Educational Events**: Invite speakers knowledgeable about international relations to discuss the implications of the conflict and the importance of standing against aggression. - **What to say**: "We need to educate our community about the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and mobilize support for those affected. Together, we can make a difference."
### 4. **Petitions and Grassroots Movements** - **Create or Sign Petitions**: Use platforms like Change.org to initiate or support petitions aimed at influencing governmental policy regarding Ukraine and Russia. - **Example Petition**: Search for petitions advocating for stronger sanctions or humanitarian aid for Ukraine on platforms like [Change.org](https://www.change.org). - **What to say**: “This petition aims to urge our leaders to take decisive action in supporting Ukraine and holding aggressors accountable. Please sign to show your support.”
### 5. **Contacting the Administration** - **Write to the Presidential Administration**: Express your concerns regarding the negotiations and urge the administration to take a firmer stance on Russia. - **Contact**: The White House - Address: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20500 - Email: comments@american.edu (for general comments) - **What to say**: “I urge you to take a strong stance in support of Ukraine and to consider further sanctions against Russia to promote peace and security in the region.”
### 6. **Engagement with Media** - **Write Letters to the Editor**: Contribute to local newspapers expressing your views on the need for continued support for Ukraine and the necessity for accountability against aggressors. - **Social Media Campaigns**: Use platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram to raise awareness and encourage others to advocate for peace and support for Ukraine. - **What to say**: “It’s critical that we remain vigilant and advocate for policies that support Ukraine and hold aggressors accountable. Let’s unite in this mission.”
### 7. **Engagement in Political Processes** - **Attend Town Hall Meetings**: Use these opportunities to ask your representatives about their stance on the negotiations and what actions they are taking regarding the situation in Ukraine. - **Vote**: Make sure to support candidates who prioritize international human rights and have a clear plan for foreign policy related to conflicts like the one in Ukraine.
By taking these actions, individuals can contribute to a larger movement advocating for peace, justice, and support for those affected by conflict. Each effort, no matter how small, can help amplify the message of solidarity and accountability on the global stage.