A New Yalta? What the Trump-Putin Summit Means for Global Security

The scheduled August 15, 2025, summit in Alaska between United States President Donald Trump and Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin represents a critical inflection point in the Russia-Ukraine war and the broader European security architecture. This meeting is not a conventional peace negotiation but a high-stakes transactional encounter driven by the distinct, yet convergent, strategic imperatives of its two principals. The summit’s outcome will have profound and lasting consequences for Ukrainian sovereignty, the cohesion of the transatlantic alliance, and the stability of the international order.

For President Trump, the summit is a political necessity. Confronted with historically low second-term approval ratings and a signature campaign promise to end the war “within 24 hours” yet unfulfilled, he requires a tangible foreign policy victory. His approach has been a volatile mix of coercive economic threats, including secondary sanctions against nations purchasing Russian oil, and a highly personalized diplomacy that prioritizes a direct deal with his Russian counterpart. His objective is to secure a cessation of hostilities that he can present to the American electorate as a decisive success, thereby validating his “America First” doctrine and his personal brand as a master dealmaker.

For President Putin, the summit is an opportunity to consolidate strategic gains from a position of perceived strength on the battlefield but underlying economic vulnerability. While enjoying exceptionally high domestic approval ratings fueled by state propaganda, Putin presides over a wartime economy showing clear signs of exhaustion and impending stagnation. Crippling defense expenditures are cannibalizing the civilian sector, and the threat of further, more comprehensive U.S. sanctions poses a significant risk to his regime’s long-term stability. His primary goals in Alaska are to achieve de facto, if not de jure, U.S. acceptance of Russia’s territorial annexations, secure relief from economic pressure, and shatter the united Western front against Moscow by dealing directly with Washington. The very structure of the bilateral summit, which excludes Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, is a pre-negotiated victory for the Kremlin, validating its worldview that the fate of smaller nations is to be decided by great powers.

For Ukraine, the stakes are existential. Sidelined from the primary negotiations concerning its own territory and future, Kyiv faces immense pressure. Its official position remains firm: no territorial concessions and a demand for robust, NATO-style security guarantees. However, this stance is increasingly undermined by military exhaustion, critical dependence on a wavering U.S. aid pipeline, and a notable decline in domestic public appetite for a protracted war. The summit thus places Ukraine in an impossible position, forced to choose between a deeply flawed peace that compromises its sovereignty and a continued war it may no longer have the resources to sustain.

The most probable outcome of the Alaska summit is not a comprehensive and just peace, but a de facto “frozen conflict” disguised as a diplomatic breakthrough. This would likely involve a ceasefire along the current line of contact, with contentious issues of territorial status and security guarantees deferred to a protracted and likely fruitless future negotiation process. Such an outcome would allow President Trump to claim he “stopped the killing” and President Putin to solidify his control over occupied territories while gaining time to rearm and address his economic woes. For Ukraine, however, a frozen conflict represents a strategic trap—a state of perpetual instability that would preclude meaningful economic recovery, deter the return of refugees, and block any viable path to EU or NATO integration, thereby achieving Russia’s long-term goal of a weak and vulnerable buffer state. The Alaska summit, therefore, is poised to reshape the geopolitical landscape, potentially rewarding aggression and ushering in a more volatile era of transactional great-power politics.

I. The Road to Alaska: Context for a High-Stakes Summit

The August 15, 2025, summit is the culmination of months of volatile diplomacy, grinding military attrition, and calculated political maneuvering. It is not an event born of mutual trust or a shared vision for peace, but rather one forged by the coercive pressure of one leader and the strategic patience of another. The strategic landscape—encompassing the battlefield realities in Ukraine, the diplomatic prelude that excluded key stakeholders, and the potent symbolism of the chosen venue—is essential to understanding the dynamics and potential outcomes of this critical meeting.

The Diplomatic Prelude: A Path Paved by Coercion and Calculation

The journey to the Alaska summit has been defined by President Trump’s signature brand of ultimatum-driven diplomacy. Since returning to office in January 2025, his administration has pursued an end to the war not through multilateral consensus-building but through direct, high-pressure tactics aimed at forcing both Moscow and Kyiv to the negotiating table on his terms. This process began with a surprise phone call to President Putin on February 12, which initiated the first direct peace negotiations since 2022.

This initial outreach soon escalated into a campaign of economic coercion. On July 14, during a meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, President Trump announced a 50-day deadline for a peace agreement, threatening to impose 100% tariffs on countries conducting business with Russia if the deadline was not met. Frustrated by a lack of progress, he dramatically shortened this ultimatum to just 10 or 12 days during a subsequent meeting with U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer on July 28. This aggressive, deadline-centric approach created the crisis atmosphere necessary to compel engagement. The pressure was made tangible when, on August 6, the U.S. imposed a 25% tariff on Indian goods due to India’s continued importation of Russian oil, the first such direct financial penalty on a Russian oil customer during Trump’s second term.

The critical breakthrough in this prelude was the mission of U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff to Moscow. On August 6, just two days before the shortened deadline, Witkoff engaged in a three-hour meeting with President Putin, which the U.S. side described as “highly productive”. This meeting was the indispensable precursor to the summit, demonstrating Putin’s willingness to engage with Trump’s personal emissary as the primary channel for negotiation. It signaled that while the Kremlin’s public posture remained maximalist, it recognized the credibility of Trump’s economic threats and saw an opportunity in direct bilateral talks.

A central and defining feature of this diplomatic process was the deliberate exclusion of Ukraine and its European allies from the core negotiations. During his Moscow visit, Witkoff reportedly proposed a trilateral meeting that would include Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. According to Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov, “the Russian side left this option completely without comment,” a clear and unambiguous rejection of the format. This was a pivotal moment. The Trump administration, which had initially suggested Zelenskyy’s participation, subsequently dropped it as a precondition for the summit. This concession to Moscow caused immediate and widespread alarm among European capitals, which have consistently maintained the principle of “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine”. By agreeing to a bilateral format, President Trump effectively accepted Russia’s framing of the conflict: not as a matter of Ukrainian sovereignty to be resolved with Kyiv, but as a question of great-power security to be settled between Washington and Moscow. This granted President Putin a significant strategic and symbolic victory before the summit even began, validating his worldview and achieving a key Russian foreign policy objective of fracturing the Western coalition.

The Battlefield as of August 2025: A War of Attrition

The negotiations in Alaska will take place against the backdrop of a brutal war of attrition, now in its fourth year. The military situation on the ground provides the fundamental leverage for both sides and directly shapes their respective calculations. While the front lines have not seen the dramatic shifts of the war’s early phases, the tactical momentum in the summer of 2025 rests with the Russian Federation.

Russian forces have continued to press their offensive, particularly in the eastern Donetsk Oblast. Recent battlefield assessments from early August indicate that Russian units have made notable advances toward the crucial Dobropillia–Kramatorsk highway, seizing positions in nearby settlements and threatening key Ukrainian logistics routes. Between July 8 and August 5, 2025, Russian forces gained approximately 226 square miles of Ukrainian territory, indicating a slow but steady advance. This grinding progress, achieved at immense human cost, allows President Putin to negotiate from a position of perceived strength, arguing that the battlefield reality is trending in his favor.

The cost of this war has been staggering for all involved. As of mid-2025, estimates place Russian military casualties at over 790,000 killed or injured, with Ukrainian losses estimated at around 400,000. Equipment losses have been similarly devastating, with Russia having lost over 22,400 military vehicles and Ukraine over 9,500. The conflict has also created a massive humanitarian crisis, killing over 13,500 Ukrainian civilians and displacing 9.4 million people, representing 21% of Ukraine’s pre-war population. This horrific toll creates a powerful incentive on all sides to seek a cessation of hostilities, even one based on deeply unfavorable terms.

Ukraine’s capacity to continue its defense is intrinsically linked to the provision of Western, and particularly American, military and intelligence support. The flow of advanced weaponry, munitions, and real-time intelligence has been crucial for Kyiv to hold the line against a numerically superior adversary. Therefore, any fluctuation or potential cutoff of U.S. aid represents a critical vulnerability for Ukraine, a fact that both Trump and Putin understand and are leveraging in the run-up to the summit.

Table 1: Military Balance of Forces and War Status (Q3 2025). Data compiled from the Institute for the Study of War and other cited sources.

The Symbolism of the Venue: Alaska

The choice of Alaska as the summit location is far from a matter of simple logistics; it is a decision laden with historical resonance and geopolitical symbolism that both sides are actively seeking to exploit. For Russia, the venue is a propaganda coup. Alaska was Russian territory until its sale to the United States in 1867 for $7.2 million. This historical fact is being heavily emphasized by Russian commentators and officials to subtly reinforce a narrative of mutable borders and historical claims, drawing a parallel between Russia’s past ownership of Alaska and its current claims on Ukrainian territory. As one analyst noted, the symbolism is “horrendous — as though designed to demonstrate that borders can change, land can be bought and sold”.

For President Putin, Alaska offers several practical and strategic advantages. It provides a secure venue for his first visit to the United States in a decade, his last being in 2015. Crucially, the United States is not a signatory to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which has issued an arrest warrant for Putin on war crimes charges, meaning the U.S. is under no obligation to detain him. The summit on U.S. soil grants him a degree of international legitimacy and validation that he has been denied since 2022, breaking his isolation and projecting an image of Russia as an indispensable global power.

The Kremlin has also sought to frame the location in economic terms. Aide Yuri Ushakov described Alaska as a place where U.S. and Russian “economic interests intersect,” particularly in the Arctic, hinting at “prospects for large-scale, mutually beneficial projects”. This is a deliberate attempt to broaden the summit’s agenda beyond the singular issue of Ukraine, positioning Russia as a potential economic partner rather than solely an aggressor and seeking to revive a trade relationship with Washington. The combination of historical symbolism, practical security, and strategic messaging makes Alaska a venue that heavily favors the Russian narrative.

II. The Dealmaker’s Endgame: Trump’s Quest for a Legacy-Defining Peace

President Trump’s motivations for orchestrating the Alaska summit are a complex amalgam of domestic political pressures, a deeply ingrained ideological framework, and a highly personalized approach to international diplomacy. Understanding his endgame requires analyzing the convergence of these factors, which together create a powerful imperative for him to secure a tangible outcome, regardless of its long-term strategic costs. His actions are not those of a traditional statesman seeking a sustainable, multilateral peace, but of a political actor requiring a high-profile “win” to bolster his domestic standing and validate his worldview.

Domestic Imperatives: A Foreign Policy “Win” as Political Necessity

The timing of the summit is inextricably linked to President Trump’s precarious domestic political situation. Six months into his second term, his job approval rating has fallen to a historic low. Multiple polls conducted in July and August 2025 place his approval between 37% and 44.5%, with his disapproval rating climbing as high as 59%. This yields a deeply negative net approval rating, ranging from -7.6% to -14%, marking the worst period of his second term. His handling of specific issues is also viewed poorly, with his approach to the situation in Ukraine garnering only 33% approval among U.S. adults. This widespread public discontent, particularly the erosion of support among crucial independent voters (down 17 points to 29% approval since January), creates an urgent need for a decisive political victory to reverse his declining fortunes.

Ending the war in Ukraine serves as the most potent potential victory. It was a central and frequently repeated promise of his 2024 presidential campaign, where he famously pledged he could end the conflict “within 24 hours”. To date, this promise has remained unfulfilled despite phone calls and diplomatic overtures, making the Alaska summit his most direct and high-profile attempt to deliver. A successful outcome, however defined, would allow him to claim he succeeded where his predecessor and European allies failed, providing a powerful narrative for his base and potentially winning back centrist voters.

Furthermore, the summit is a test of his core political identity as the ultimate “dealmaker.” His public statements reflect this personal investment; he has claimed he will know “probably in the first two minutes” of the meeting whether a deal with Putin is achievable, based on his unique ability to “make deals”. He has also framed the summit as a personal entreaty from the Russian leader, stating, “President Putin invited me to get involved”. This personalization of diplomacy raises the stakes immensely. A perceived failure would not just be a policy setback but a blow to his fundamental political brand, a risk he is unlikely to tolerate. This creates a vulnerability that President Putin can exploit, as Trump’s need for theappearance of a successful deal may override the strategic necessity of a sound one.

The “America First” Doctrine in Action

President Trump’s approach to the Ukraine conflict is a textbook application of his “America First” foreign policy doctrine, which prioritizes transactional relationships and a rebalancing of security burdens over traditional alliance politics. His administration’s policy toward NATO provides the essential context. He has consistently castigated European allies for failing to meet defense spending targets, framing the alliance as a system where the U.S. was being “ripped off”. His pressure campaign culminated in a landmark June 2025 agreement where NATO members committed to increasing defense spending to an ambitious 5% of GDP by 2035. This was hailed by his administration as the end of “free rides” for Europe.

This transactional mindset is now being applied directly to the war in Ukraine. A key element of his strategy is not to abandon Ukraine, but to shift the financial burden of its defense onto Europe. His administration has facilitated a new mechanism whereby NATO allies purchase U.S.-made weapons for transfer to Ukraine. This serves multiple “America First” objectives simultaneously: it reduces the direct cost to the U.S. taxpayer, it generates revenue for the American defense industrial base, and it forces European nations to take greater responsibility for their own security. The summit, therefore, is not about American isolationism, but about cementing a new security architecture where the U.S. acts as the final arbiter and primary arms supplier, while Europe foots the bill.

Economic leverage is his primary diplomatic tool. The recent imposition of a 25% tariff on India for its purchase of Russian oil is a clear demonstration of this principle. It shows a willingness to use punitive secondary sanctions to coerce third-party nations into compliance with U.S. foreign policy goals, viewing trade policy and national security as interchangeable levers of state power. This approach is underpinned by a deep skepticism of foreign aid and multilateral institutions, as reflected in his administration’s cuts to USAID and the policy goals outlined in the Project 2025 framework, which calls for a re-evaluation of U.S. participation in international organizations. This ideological foundation explains his preference for a direct, bilateral summit with Putin over a more complex, multilateral process involving the UN or European Union.

The Trump-Putin Dynamic: A History of Personal Diplomacy

The personal relationship between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin has long been a subject of intense scrutiny and is a critical variable in the upcoming summit. It is a relationship that has oscillated between public praise and private frustration. During his first term, Trump often spoke admiringly of Putin, a pattern that has continued into his second. However, as Putin has resisted Trump’s calls for a ceasefire and continued large-scale attacks on Ukrainian cities, this admiration has been punctuated by public displays of exasperation, including emotional, all-caps posts on his Truth Social platform such as “VLADIMIR, STOP!” and calls to end the “BLOODBATH”.

The Alaska summit is the latest chapter in their history of personal encounters, following meetings at the G20 in Osaka in 2019 and the controversial 2018 summit in Helsinki. The Helsinki meeting, in particular, drew widespread condemnation in the United States after Trump appeared to publicly side with Putin’s denial of Russian interference in the 2016 election over the conclusions of his own intelligence agencies. While his current posture appears more outwardly confrontational—driven by the use of sanctions and ultimatums—his underlying strategy still rests on the core belief that his personal rapport and deal-making prowess can succeed where conventional diplomacy has failed. He believes a face-to-face meeting can break the impasse, a conviction that Putin understands and is prepared to manipulate to his advantage.

Table 2: Domestic Pressures on Trump and Putin (August 2025).

III. The Kremlin’s Calculus: Consolidating Gains Amidst Economic Fragility

President Vladimir Putin approaches the Alaska summit from a position of profound strategic duality. On one hand, he wields near-total control over Russia’s domestic political and informational landscape, buttressed by wartime propaganda that has generated sky-high public approval. On the other, he presides over a structurally flawed and increasingly fragile economy that is buckling under the strain of a protracted, high-intensity conflict. The Kremlin’s calculus is therefore driven by a singular objective: to leverage its battlefield momentum and Trump’s desire for a deal to translate temporary military gains into permanent political concessions, while simultaneously securing the economic relief necessary to ensure his regime’s long-term survival.

The Façade of Domestic Strength: The “Rally ‘Round the Flag” Effect

Domestically, President Putin’s position appears unassailable. Polling conducted by the independent Levada Center in February 2025 showed his approval rating at a remarkable 88%, consistent with a string of record highs recorded since the full-scale invasion began in 2022. This surge in support, rising from 65% in 2021, is a classic example of the “rally ’round the flag” effect, where a national population coalesces around its leader during a time of international conflict. This effect has been amplified by the Kremlin’s complete dominance of the domestic media environment.

State-controlled television and online platforms have successfully framed the war not as an act of aggression, but as a defensive and existential struggle against an encroaching NATO and a “neo-Nazi” regime in Kyiv. This narrative resonates deeply within Russia, tapping into historical memories of the “Great Patriotic War” and insulating the majority of the population from the war’s true costs and moral implications. Consequently, public opinion surveys show broad support for Putin’s assertive foreign policy. A late 2024 poll found that 62% of Russians believe the country should take an active part in world affairs, and overwhelming majorities see maintaining military superiority (85%) and strengthening cooperation with non-Western powers like the BRICS nations (83%) as effective foreign policy approaches. This solid wall of domestic support provides Putin with a strong political mandate to pursue his maximalist objectives and resist any perceived concessions that would make him appear weak.

The Cracks in the Fortress Economy

Beneath this veneer of political strength, however, lie deep and growing economic vulnerabilities. The period of rapid, war-fueled economic growth, driven by massive state spending on defense, is over. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has drastically downgraded Russia’s GDP growth forecast for 2025 to a mere 0.9%, a steep fall from 4.1% in 2024. Russia’s own Central Bank has issued an even starker warning, forecasting near-zero growth by the end of the year and acknowledging that the economic resources that fueled the initial wartime expansion “have truly been exhausted”.

The Russian economy is suffering from severe structural imbalances. Defense spending is projected to consume a staggering 43% of the entire 2025 federal budget when hidden expenditures are included. This massive diversion of resources is effectively cannibalizing the civilian economy, which is contracting due to prohibitively high interest rates, acute labor shortages, and collapsing private investment. The sharpest declines have been recorded in sectors like agricultural machinery and excavator production. For the average Russian, the economic pain is becoming increasingly tangible. Official Rosstat data reveals sharp year-over-year price increases for staple goods, with the cost of potatoes rising by 81%, cabbage by 37%, and butter by 36.5%.

This economic strain is translating into a severe budgetary crisis. A global decline in crude oil prices has caused Russia’s oil revenues to fall by approximately a third from July 2024 to July 2025, eroding a key pillar of the wartime budget. Simultaneously, the cost of servicing the national debt is soaring, projected to consume 7.7% of the federal budget in 2025. The National Welfare Fund, a rainy-day fund used to plug budget deficits, is nearing exhaustion, with usable reserves dropping to just $40 billion as of May 2025 against a projected year-end deficit of over $50 billion. This dire situation has forced the Kremlin to consider deeply unpopular austerity measures, including cuts to social spending. It is this underlying economic fragility, and the credible threat of further crippling secondary sanctions from the Trump administration, that has likely compelled Putin to the negotiating table. His agreement to meet is not a sign of diplomatic flexibility, but a symptom of economic desperation—a calculated move to release pressure before it reaches a critical, regime-threatening level.

Putin’s Unchanging Strategic Objectives

Despite these economic pressures, President Putin’s core strategic objectives for the war in Ukraine have remained remarkably consistent and uncompromising. His primary goal is the consolidation and international legitimization of his territorial conquests. His non-negotiable demand, which has been the starting point in all previous rounds of talks, is the “international legal recognition” of Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea and its 2022 annexation of the four Ukrainian oblasts of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson. He views the Alaska summit as a unique opportunity to secure this recognition, at least implicitly, from the United States.

Beyond territory, his aims extend to the fundamental subjugation of the Ukrainian state. A comprehensive peace treaty, in the Kremlin’s view, must include provisions for Ukraine’s “demilitarization” (a severe limitation of its armed forces), its permanent neutrality (a ban on joining NATO or any other Western alliance), and its “denazification” (a euphemism for regime change in Kyiv and the installation of a pro-Russian government). These demands, which reflect his goals from the very outset of the invasion, are designed to ensure that Ukraine can never again pose a military or ideological challenge to Russia’s sphere of influence.

Finally, the summit itself is a strategic objective. For years, the U.S. and its allies have sought to make Putin a global pariah. A bilateral summit on U.S. soil shatters this isolation, restoring his status on the world stage and projecting an image of Russia as an equal superpower whose security concerns must be addressed by Washington. This provides invaluable material for his domestic propaganda machine, which will portray any outcome as a triumph of his strong and resolute leadership. Putin’s overarching strategy is to trade a temporary and reversible military concession—a ceasefire—for permanent and irreversible political gains: de facto U.S. recognition of his territorial annexations and a crippling of the Ukrainian state’s long-term sovereignty.

IV. Ukraine at the Crossroads: Sovereignty Versus Survival

For Ukraine, the Alaska summit represents a moment of existential peril. Excluded from the primary negotiations that will determine its fate, Kyiv is caught in a diplomatic and strategic vise, squeezed between its unwavering commitment to national sovereignty and the brutal realities of a war of attrition, its dependence on a volatile key ally, and the growing weariness of its own population. The Ukrainian government is being forced to navigate a treacherous landscape where the line between a principled defense of its rights and a pragmatic fight for national survival has become dangerously blurred.

Kyiv’s Official Stance: The Red Lines of Sovereignty

The Ukrainian government, led by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, has consistently articulated a clear and resolute negotiating position based on the fundamental principles of international law and national sovereignty. The cornerstone of this position is an absolute refusal to countenance any territorial concessions. President Zelenskyy has repeatedly and forcefully stated that Ukraine will not surrender its land, a stance that is not only a matter of national pride but is also enshrined in the country’s constitution. This includes both the territories occupied since the 2022 invasion and the Crimean Peninsula, which was illegally annexed by Russia in 2014.

Equally important is Kyiv’s demand for “robust and credible” security guarantees from Western powers as a prerequisite for any lasting peace. This demand is born from the failure of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, under which Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal in exchange for security assurances that proved worthless in 2014 and 2022. Ukraine is seeking a commitment akin to NATO’s Article 5, a legally binding defense pact that would deter future Russian aggression, not merely a set of political assurances.

Furthermore, Kyiv categorically rejects Russia’s core demands for Ukrainian neutrality, demilitarization, and limitations on its armed forces. These conditions are viewed as a direct assault on Ukraine’s sovereign right to determine its own foreign policy and alliances, and to maintain a military capable of defending its borders. The guiding principle of Ukraine’s diplomacy, strongly echoed by its European partners, is “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine”. President Zelenskyy has publicly declared that any decisions made bilaterally between Washington and Moscow without Kyiv’s participation will be “dead decisions” that “will never work,” underscoring the perceived illegitimacy of the Alaska summit’s format.

The Unspoken Realities: A Deteriorating Position

While Ukraine’s public stance is one of uncompromising resolve, it is being progressively undermined by a series of harsh and deteriorating realities on the ground. After more than three years of relentless, high-intensity warfare, the Ukrainian armed forces are showing signs of severe exhaustion. They are struggling to contain persistent Russian advances along the 1,000-kilometer front line and are facing what has been described as a “mobilization gridlock,” as the pool of willing and able-bodied recruits dwindles.

This military strain is compounded by Ukraine’s critical dependence on the United States for military and financial aid. The U.S. has been by far the largest single provider of assistance, and a suspension of this aid pipeline would be a “disaster” for Ukraine’s war effort. It would particularly degrade Kyiv’s two most crucial capabilities: air defense systems that protect its cities from Russian missile and drone barrages, and long-range precision strike systems like HIMARS that allow it to target Russian logistics and command centers deep behind the front lines. Even the threat of an aid cutoff, which is implicit in President Trump’s transactional approach, gives the U.S. immense leverage over Kyiv’s decision-making. The impact is not limited to military aid; cuts to U.S. humanitarian assistance are already being felt, severely affecting the healthcare system and the care of civilians in conflict zones.

These pressures are beginning to manifest in a significant shift in Ukrainian public opinion. While the will to resist remains strong, the appetite for a seemingly endless war is waning. A July 2025 Gallup poll revealed a dramatic reversal from the early stages of the war: 69% of Ukrainians now support seeking a negotiated end to the conflict as soon as possible, compared to just 24% who favor continuing to fight until victory. In 2022, those figures were nearly inverted, with 73% favoring a fight to victory. This growing war-weariness is accompanied by a collapse in faith in American leadership, with approval of the U.S. government’s performance plummeting from 66% in 2022 to just 16% in 2025. This confluence of military exhaustion, aid dependency, and declining domestic morale creates a dangerous gap between the government’s official negotiating position and the country’s actual capacity to sustain the fight. Privately, Ukrainian officials have reportedly acknowledged this reality, telling the Associated Press that Kyiv would be “amenable to a peace deal that would de facto recognize Ukraine’s inability to regain lost territories militarily”.

The Diplomatic Squeeze: Sidelined and Pressured

The format of the Alaska summit places Ukraine in an untenable diplomatic position. Its exclusion from the primary negotiating table is the ultimate realization of its deepest fears—that a deal will be struck “over its head” and imposed upon it. This structural sidelining is exacerbated by President Trump’s personal rhetoric. He has been publicly dismissive of President Zelenskyy, suggesting he has been in power for the duration of the war while “nothing happened” and framing the concept of territorial swaps as an inevitable and necessary component of any peace deal. This public posturing serves to undermine Zelenskyy’s authority and signals to Putin that the U.S. is willing to apply significant pressure on its own ally to secure an agreement.

While European leaders have voiced strong rhetorical support for Ukraine’s inclusion and have insisted that its security is inseparable from their own, their ability to materially influence a process driven by President Trump is limited. The result is a profound sense of diplomatic isolation for Kyiv. The summit’s primary impact on Ukraine may thus be psychological, engineered to create a sense of abandonment and hopelessness. By demonstrating that Ukraine’s principal backer is now negotiating directly with its aggressor, the summit aims to break Ukraine’s national will to resist, forcing it to accept terms that would otherwise be unthinkable. The war may ultimately be decided not by a final battle on the fields of the Donbas, but by the psychological weight of this diplomatic isolation.

V. Anatomy of a Potential Accord: From Ceasefire to Territorial Exchange

Any agreement emerging from the Alaska summit will be constructed around a central, deeply contentious bargain: a cessation of active hostilities in exchange for a fundamental alteration of Ukraine’s sovereign territory and security posture. The precise details remain subject to negotiation, but the broad outlines of the key components—territory, security alignment, and economic relations—have been clearly signaled by all parties. The final accord, if one is reached, will likely be a complex document engineered for ambiguity, allowing each leader to claim a victory while deferring the most intractable issues and institutionalizing a new, fragile, and dangerous status quo.

The Core Bargain: “Land for Peace”

The centerpiece of the entire negotiation is the concept of a territorial exchange, a euphemism for the permanent or indefinite cession of Ukrainian land to Russia. President Trump has repeatedly floated this idea, speaking of “some swapping of territories, to the betterment of both”. This framing is a deliberate attempt to portray the concession of sovereign territory not as a loss for Ukraine, but as a pragmatic component of a balanced deal.

Russia’s position on this matter is maximalist and unambiguous. Moscow’s starting point for any ceasefire is the recognition of its control over the four Ukrainian oblasts it illegally annexed in 2022—Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson—in their entirety, in addition to its 2014 annexation of Crimea. This demand extends even to parts of these regions that Russian forces do not currently occupy.

The likely U.S.-brokered “compromise” will attempt to bridge this gap by focusing on the current line of contact. The most probable basis for a deal is a ceasefire-in-place, which would freeze the conflict along existing front lines. To make this more palatable, the deal might involve the “swapping” mechanism Trump has mentioned. Analysts have suggested this could entail Russia withdrawing from some recently captured territories outside the four annexed oblasts in exchange for Ukraine ceding its remaining control over areas within them. This would allow President Trump to claim he successfully negotiated to get “some of that territory back for Ukraine,” even as the deal would de facto legitimize Russia’s control over the vast majority of its conquests. The language of such an agreement would be critical; it would likely avoid explicit recognition of Russian sovereignty, instead referring to “zones of administrative control” or other ambiguous terms, allowing all sides to maintain their de jure positions while accepting the de facto reality.

Security Architecture and Alignment

The second critical pillar of any accord will be the future security status of the Ukrainian state. For Russia, preventing Ukraine’s membership in NATO is a non-negotiable “red line”. This is a major point of leverage for Moscow, as the Trump administration has already signaled that it views Ukrainian NATO membership as impractical and has taken it off the table for the foreseeable future, representing a significant unilateral concession.

Building on this, Russia will aggressively push for a treaty that codifies Ukraine’s neutrality and imposes strict limitations on its military capabilities. Moscow’s proposals have consistently included demands to limit the size of Ukraine’s army, prohibit the stationing of any foreign troops or bases on its soil, and potentially even restrict the types of weaponry it can possess. While Kyiv officially rejects these terms as an unacceptable infringement on its sovereignty, it will face intense U.S. pressure to compromise on this front.

In place of NATO membership, Ukraine has demanded robust, legally binding security guarantees from Western powers. However, the likely outcome will fall far short of this. Instead of a mutual defense pact, the “guarantees” offered will likely consist of continued commitments to provide Ukraine with arms, funding, and training. President Trump himself is philosophically opposed to “paper promises” and favors creating security through tangible, shared economic interests, such as deals on mineral rights, rather than formal alliance treaties. Crucially, Russia will insist that any such security arrangement includes the very limitations on Ukraine’s military it is seeking. In this way, the concept of “security guarantees” could be paradoxically transformed into a mechanism for enforcing a limited form of Ukrainian sovereignty, serving Russia’s long-term strategic interests under the guise of providing for Ukraine’s defense.

Economic and Diplomatic Dimensions

The economic components of a potential deal are a primary motivator for Moscow. From the Kremlin’s perspective, a comprehensive peace treaty must include the lifting of all Western sanctions imposed since 2014. This is a key U.S. bargaining chip, and the Trump administration has already directed the State and Treasury Departments to draft “options papers” on potential sanctions relief as a way to incentivize Russian cooperation. A deal would likely involve a phased lifting of sanctions, tied to compliance with the terms of the ceasefire and subsequent agreements.

While the immediate focus of the summit is Ukraine, the meeting could also serve as a forum to reset the broader U.S.-Russia relationship. A key issue on the long-term agenda is the future of strategic arms control. The New START treaty, the last remaining nuclear arms pact between the two countries, is set to expire in February 2026, and Russia has already “suspended” its participation. A successful summit in Alaska could create the political momentum needed to begin negotiations on a successor treaty, an outcome both sides have signaled a potential interest in pursuing. This allows Putin to frame the summit as a return to superpower-level strategic stability talks, further enhancing his international prestige.

Table 3: Comparative Negotiating Positions (August 2025).

VI. Scenarios and Strategic Implications: Charting the Post-Summit Landscape

The Alaska summit is a high-variance event with a range of potential outcomes, each carrying profound strategic implications for Ukraine, Russia, the United States, and the international order. The final result will depend on the complex interplay between President Trump’s desire for a political “win” and President Putin’s assessment of how much he needs to concede to secure his core objectives. The following four scenarios outline the most plausible post-summit landscapes.

Scenario 1: The Frozen Conflict (High Probability)

• Description: This scenario represents the most likely outcome, serving as a path of least resistance for both principals. President Trump and President Putin agree to a comprehensive ceasefire along the existing line of contact. The agreement is framed as a major breakthrough in “stopping the killing.” However, the most contentious political issues—the final legal status of occupied territories, Ukraine’s potential NATO membership, and the full removal of sanctions—are deferred to a new, vaguely defined, and protracted negotiation process that would nominally include Ukraine and European allies. In practice, this freezes the conflict in place, leaving Russia in de facto control of approximately 18.9% of Ukrainian territory.
• Gains and Losses: For President Trump, this is a clear political victory. He can return to Washington having fulfilled his promise to end the active fighting, a tangible achievement he can brandish to his domestic audience. For President Putin, the gains are immense and strategic. He secures an end to active combat without relinquishing any significant territorial gains, alleviates the immediate threat of escalating secondary sanctions, and gains invaluable time to rest and reconstitute his battered military and stabilize his strained economy. The primary loser is Ukraine, which is left in a state of permanent geopolitical limbo. Its sovereignty is compromised, its economy is unable to fully recover due to the persistent risk of renewed conflict, and its path to meaningful integration with the EU and NATO is indefinitely blocked.
• Strategic Implications: This outcome institutionalizes a long-term, festering security crisis at the heart of Europe. A frozen conflict is not a stable peace; it is a strategic trap. It allows Russia to maintain a permanent launchpad for future aggression and to continually exert political and economic pressure to destabilize the Ukrainian state from within. For the West, it represents a significant blow to the principle that borders cannot be changed by force, effectively rewarding aggression with a de facto victory.

Scenario 2: The Grand Bargain / “Yalta 2.0” (Low-Medium Probability)

• Description: In this less likely but still plausible scenario, the leaders go beyond a simple ceasefire and strike a comprehensive deal. Under intense U.S. pressure, Ukraine is compelled to formally cede sovereignty over Crimea and significant portions of the Donbas in exchange for a Russian withdrawal from other occupied territories in the south (the full realization of a “land swap”). The deal would codify Ukraine’s neutrality, formally ending its NATO aspirations, in exchange for a set of limited, non-NATO security assurances and a clearer path toward EU membership. In return, the United States and its allies would initiate a significant rollback of economic sanctions against Russia.
• Gains and Losses: President Trump would hail this as a historic, legacy-defining peace agreement, potentially positioning himself for a Nobel Peace Prize. President Putin would achieve his most cherished strategic goals: internationally recognized territorial expansion and the creation of a neutered, non-aligned buffer state on his western flank. The outcome would be catastrophic for Ukrainian sovereignty and a fundamental betrayal in the eyes of the Ukrainian people, likely triggering a severe domestic political crisis in Kyiv.
• Strategic Implications: A “Grand Bargain” of this nature would signal the definitive end of the post-Cold War international order. It would explicitly reward military aggression and formalize a return to an era of great-power spheres of influence, where the fates of smaller nations are dictated by larger ones. This would set a dangerous precedent, emboldening other revisionist powers around the globe and dramatically increasing global instability.

Scenario 3: Diplomatic Collapse (Medium Probability)

• Description: The summit ends in failure. This could occur if President Putin’s demands prove too maximalist even for a deal-hungry President Trump, or if Putin flatly rejects what Trump considers a reasonable offer. Unwilling to be perceived as weak or to have been played, Trump could abruptly walk away from the negotiations, a tactic he has employed in the past with North Korea. He would frame the collapse as a demonstration of his strength and resolve.
• Gains and Losses: Ukraine and its European allies would breathe a collective sigh of relief, having avoided a “bad deal” imposed upon them. President Trump could spin the failure as a political win, claiming he was tough and refused to capitulate to unreasonable Russian demands. The immediate loser would be the prospect for peace, which would evaporate entirely. President Putin would face the full wrath of Trump’s follow-on threats, likely including massive secondary sanctions on Russia’s remaining trade partners and a potential escalation of the economic war.
• Strategic Implications: A diplomatic collapse would likely lead to a dangerous escalation of the conflict. Both sides would seek to improve their negotiating positions through force, leading to intensified fighting on the battlefield. The risk of a direct U.S.-Russia confrontation would increase significantly as Washington implements a more punitive economic containment strategy. The war would become more entrenched and even more difficult to resolve in the future.

Scenario 4: The Staged Process / “Feel-Out” Meeting (High Probability as a Component of Scenario 1)

• Description: The summit itself produces no substantive breakthrough but is deliberately framed by both sides as a “constructive” and “necessary” first step. The leaders might agree to a minor, temporary de-escalation measure, such as a halt to long-range missile strikes on civilian infrastructure, as a confidence-building measure. The primary outcome would be an agreement to establish a new framework for future talks, empowering lower-level diplomats to work on the details of a more comprehensive settlement.
• Gains and Losses: This scenario allows both leaders to save face. Trump avoids the political fallout of a failed summit and can claim that he has successfully initiated a “peace process.” Putin gets the international legitimacy of the summit and engages the U.S. in a long-term diplomatic process without having to make any immediate, significant concessions. The dynamic of the conflict remains largely unchanged, but the diplomatic initiative is firmly seized by Washington and Moscow.
• Strategic Implications: This is effectively a slower, more managed path toward the “Frozen Conflict” scenario. It kicks the can down the road but does so in a way that continues to sideline Ukraine and its European allies, reinforcing the great-power dynamic established by the bilateral summit format. It creates the illusion of diplomatic progress while the facts on the ground remain frozen in Russia’s favor. The most probable outcome is a combination of these latter two scenarios: a ceasefire-in-place (Scenario 1) that is publicly announced and framed as the successful first stage of a new diplomatic process (Scenario 4). This allows Trump to declare an immediate victory (“I stopped the war”) while Putin secures his strategic objectives on the ground, all under the guise of a hopeful, ongoing peace negotiation.

VII. Strategic Outlook and Concluding Assessment

The Alaska summit, irrespective of its immediate, tactical outcome, is poised to be a watershed moment that will fundamentally reshape the geopolitical landscape. It signifies a decisive break from the principles that have governed European security since the end of the Cold War and marks the ascendancy of a more transactional, realpolitik-driven international environment. The long-term consequences of this meeting will reverberate across Ukraine, Europe, and the global balance of power.

The New Geopolitical Landscape: The summit validates, at least in part, the core tenets of Russia’s challenge to the U.S.-led international order. By compelling the American president to a bilateral negotiation that sidelines a sovereign nation and its allies, President Putin has successfully forced a return to a great-power condominium model of diplomacy. This sets a dangerous precedent, signaling to other revisionist states that the norms of territorial integrity and national sovereignty are no longer sacrosanct but are subject to negotiation between major powers. The world emerging from the Alaska summit is likely to be more multipolar, more unstable, and more openly contested, with spheres of influence once again becoming an explicit feature of international relations.

The Future of Ukraine: The most probable outcome—a de facto frozen conflict—places Ukraine in a state of suspended animation, a strategic trap from which there is no easy escape. Territorially divided and facing a permanent military threat along a static front line, the nation’s long-term viability will be severely compromised. The persistent risk of renewed hostilities will cripple its ability to attract the foreign investment necessary for reconstruction, exacerbate its already severe demographic crisis by discouraging the return of millions of refugees, and drain its national resources through the need to maintain a constant state of military readiness. Ukraine’s survival as a prosperous and independent state will become almost entirely dependent on the willingness and capacity of European nations to provide sustained, long-term economic and military support in the face of a diminished and more transactional American commitment.

The Transatlantic Alliance Under Strain: The bilateral nature of the summit will inflict lasting damage on the cohesion and trust that underpin the transatlantic alliance. European leaders, having been largely relegated to the role of concerned observers, will see the summit as a confirmation of their fears about the reliability of U.S. security guarantees under an “America First” administration. This will inevitably accelerate the push for European “strategic autonomy,” a long-debated concept that will now acquire a new urgency. While this may lead to a stronger and more capable European defense posture in the long run, the immediate effect is likely to be a more fragmented and uncertain security architecture, with greater divergence between Washington and key European capitals on how to manage the Russian threat.

U.S.-Russia Relations: A “successful” summit, defined as one that produces a ceasefire, may lead to a temporary tactical de-escalation between Washington and Moscow. It could open the door for renewed dialogue on narrow issues of mutual interest, such as strategic arms control. However, it will not resolve the fundamental and irreconcilable conflict of interests between a revisionist Russia seeking to restore its imperial domain and a United States committed, at least nominally, to a rules-based order. The relationship will be defined by a tense and managed competition at best. The underlying risk of future confrontation will remain high, as any peace built on the terms likely to emerge from Alaska will be inherently unstable and viewed by Moscow as merely a temporary truce before the next phase of its long-term campaign to dominate its periphery.

Final Assessment: In conclusion, the Alaska summit is a high-risk gamble driven by the short-term political needs of President Trump and the long-term strategic ambitions of President Putin. While President Trump is positioned to achieve his immediate goal of securing a deal that he can portray as a major foreign policy triumph, it is President Putin who is poised to reap the more significant and lasting strategic rewards. The summit is unlikely to produce a just and durable peace for Ukraine. Instead, it is set to legitimize the gains of military aggression, create a permanent source of instability in Eastern Europe, and formalize a new, more dangerous era in global affairs. The “peace” that may be declared in Alaska will likely be a strategic illusion, masking a reality in which Ukraine is trapped, the West is divided, and the international order is rendered significantly more fragile.