The Trump-Putin Alaska Summit: Road to Make Deal on Ukraine?

Meeting to End Russian-Ukrainian War

U.S. President Donald Trump said he believes Russian President Vladimir Putin is ready to end the war in Ukraine and expects a summit involving both leaders and possibly Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. Putin praised U.S. efforts to stop hostilities and suggested nuclear arms control could be part of wider security talks. European and Ukrainian allies expressed concern that any U.S.-Russia deal might cement Russian territorial gains or lead to sanctions relief and urged caution. Trump indicated willingness to offer security guarantees for Ukraine but downplayed details and emphasized follow-up meetings would be likely.

Key points

• Trump said he thinks Putin and Zelenskiy are willing to make peace and expects a first summit could lead to a second meeting including Ukraine.
• Putin lauded U.S. efforts to end the conflict and proposed discussing nuclear arms control and broader security arrangements.
• European and Ukrainian officials warned a U.S.-Russia deal risks legitimizing Russian territorial gains or lifting sanctions; they urged vigilance.
• Trump signaled possible U.S. security guarantees for Ukraine but gave few specifics and framed negotiations as a multi-step process.

Our Take

We believe that Russia is ready for a deal for several reasons. First, this will be a way our for Putin. Trump’s threat to further tighten sanctions especially on oil through recent pressure on India for example would impact Russia. By doing a deal now, Putin hopes to cement some of his gains.

The longer this war continues, the weaker Russia will become in the long-term since its military will have manpower shortages due to high battle dealths. This has implications for other Russian interests. Look what happened in Syria where a shortage of Russian troops played a role in the downfall of Asad and loss of their military bases.

Third, by reducing Western sanctions and potetially a deal on minerials or economic cooperation, Russia will increase its strenght and rely less on the Chinese. Remember that Putin does not want to play second fiddle to China. A deal is a way out for Russia to rely less on China.

Thus, for these reasons we believe a deal is highly likely at this stage. Of course there are complications in the details and all parties must agree.

Additionally, for Ukraine a deal is the best outcome since it is the smaller of the two combatants in terms of population and military size.  Thus, as the war goes on the advantage is on the Russian side even with western help. 

While we don’t expect a final deal in this first meeting, we see the outcome of the meeting as likely being positive.  In the end, there will be some exchange of territories between Ukraine and Russia.  In addition, expect some economic gains such as the end of sanctions and economic deals for Russia.

Reactions and ramifications

Allies and partners reacted warily to the prospect of direct U.S.-Russia negotiations on a Ukraine settlement. Several European capitals stressed that any agreement must respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, not reward aggression, and should be negotiated with Kyiv’s full participation.

• NATO and EU members reiterated that they would not accept deals that freeze in place Russian control over Crimea or areas of eastern Ukraine seized since 2014, and said long-term security for Europe depends on upholding international law.
• Ukraine’s government warned against backroom deals and said only Kyiv can consent to terms affecting its borders and future. Ukrainian officials and diplomats said they would press for guarantees of security assistance, reparations, and the withdrawal of occupying forces as preconditions for negotiating peace.
• Some U.S. lawmakers expressed concern that a U.S.-Russia agreement reached primarily through executive channels could undercut Western leverage, including sanctions, and called for close congressional oversight of any proposed terms or concessions.

Policy options and hurdles

Analysts noted multiple substantive and political obstacles to a lasting settlement. Key issues likely to complicate talks include the status of Crimea, the withdrawal of Russian forces, security arrangements for Ukraine, the scope and sequencing of sanctions relief, and mechanisms for verification and enforcement.

• Verification regimes: Any credible deal would need robust verification — potentially including international observers, monitoring by organizations such as the OSCE, and technical arms-control measures — to ensure compliance and to detect violations early.
• Enforcement and sequencing: Determining how and when sanctions might be eased, tied to specific Russian steps, presents a delicate sequencing problem. Western officials have been wary of lifting sanctions too early and of creating perverse incentives for further aggression.
• Domestic politics: Leaders in Kyiv, Moscow, Washington and European capitals face domestic constituencies with differing priorities; negotiating terms that survive political scrutiny at home could prove difficult.
• Nuclear and strategic-arms issues: Putin’s suggestion to fold nuclear arms control into broader security talks raises complex technical and trust issues — particularly given the collapse of some previous arms-control frameworks and disputes over compliance.

Outlook

While the prospect of renewed diplomacy offers a potential path toward ending the bloodshed, many observers cautioned that talks would be complicated, lengthy, and fragile. Diplomacy could begin with confidence-building measures — humanitarian corridors, prisoner exchanges, localized ceasefires — and proceed to more contentious political negotiations if mutual trust could be rebuilt. Alternatively, without careful design and full Ukrainian engagement, an agreement could produce only a temporary lull or even entrench contested outcomes.