Analysis
Confusion
over the Alaska summit shows Vladimir Putin still calls the shots
Shaun
Walker
Donald
Trump rewarding the Kremlin’s hardline attitude shows Russia can still sideline
Ukraine from deal to end war
Sun 10
Aug 2025 17.09 BST
In the
five months since Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy met at the Oval Office
in late February, Ukrainian officials have worked hard to repair the damage of
that day, which ended with the Ukrainian president being kicked out of the
White House.
With
advice from European allies, Zelenskyy recalibrated his strategy for dealing
with the Trump administration, and there was a feeling it was broadly going
well. “We managed to reset communications, to find a new language to work with
Trump,” said one senior official in Kyiv a week ago.
It has
also seemed as if Trump’s rhetoric was finally shifting, as he termed Russia’s
bombing of Ukrainian cities “disgusting” in recent weeks and set Vladimir Putin
a deadline of last Friday to stop the war or face the imposition of crippling
new sanctions.
Then came
envoy Steve Witkoff’s visit to Moscow last Wednesday. Putin appears to have
made no major concessions during the three-hour Kremlin meeting, and in return
was rewarded not with debilitating sanctions but with an invitation to meet
Trump in Alaska. The offer to thrash out a Ukrainian peace deal at a bilateral
summit with Trump represents exactly the sort of great-power deal-making Putin
has always craved. It will be his first trip to the US since 2007, with the
exception of visits to the UN.
Exactly
how the Alaska summit will look is still unclear, with a particularly Trumpian
kind of confusion and chaos accompanying its announcement. Kyiv, European
capitals and even Trump’s own staff have been trying to understand what exactly
was agreed in the Kremlin.
The first
announcements from the White House suggested Putin would meet Trump, followed
by a three-way meeting between Trump, Putin and Zelenskyy. This was swiftly
denied by Putin. As he put it, “we are still far from creating the conditions”
for a meeting with Zelenskyy. An aide denied that the Russian side had ever
agreed to a three-way meeting.
A White
House source told the New York Post on Thursday that if Putin did not agree to
meet Zelenskyy, the meeting with Trump would not go ahead. But a few hours
later, Trump denied that: he was happy to meet Putin anyway. The back-and-forth
gave the distinct impression, not for the first time, that in the relationship
between Trump and Putin, it is the Russian president who calls the shots.
Some
administration officials later briefed US media outlets that they may invite
Zelenskyy anyway, and the German chancellor, Friedrich Merz, said in a Sunday
interview he “hopes and assumes” that Zelenskyy will take part. For now, this
does not seem likely. A senior White House official told NBC that Trump was
“open” to a trilateral summit, but was “focusing on planning the bilateral
meeting requested by president Putin”.
As
worrying for Kyiv as the planned format of the talks is the apparent Russian
deal now on the table. The plan, as it has been reported after filtering
through the Trump administration and then to European capitals, is that the
Ukrainian army should unilaterally withdraw from the parts of Donetsk and
Luhansk it still controls, which would presumably include the fortified
military stronghold of Kramatorsk. In exchange, the Kremlin would agree to
freeze the lines in other places.
“Ukrainians
will not give their land to occupiers,” Zelenskyy said over the weekend, adding
that handing over land to Russia would violate the Ukrainian constitution. He
said any deal done without Ukraine was destined to be “stillborn”.
Zelenskyy’s
public posture that Ukraine will never cede land is true up to a point. Kyiv is
unlikely to renounce legal claims to its own territory, but the Ukrainian elite
and much of Ukrainian society is increasingly ready for a deal that would
recognise Russian de facto control, perhaps for a set period of time, in
exchange for ending the fighting.
The main
problem with such a deal has always been what kind of guarantees Ukraine would
receive that Russia would not simply use a ceasefire as time to regroup before
attacking again. Brief discussions earlier this year about a European
peacekeeping force to police a ceasefire were quickly scaled back to a
“reassurance force” stationed far from the frontlines. Ukrainians would
therefore have not much to rely on but Putin’s word, which they have learned
from experience not to trust.
Even
still, there is a significant camp in the Ukrainian political and military
elite who believe that, after more than three years of war, the situation has
become so dire that the country is obliged to take such a deal, simply to allow
for a pause in the fighting.
The
problem for Kyiv is the deal Putin apparently pitched to Witkoff is
significantly worse than simply freezing the lines. “As things stand, Ukraine
and Europe are on the verge of being confronted with exactly the kind of
Faustian deal they feared would emerge back in February,” Sam Greene, a
professor at King’s College London, wrote on X.
Over the
past few days, Zelenskyy and his team have been rallying support among European
leaders and trying to put together an alternative, European plan. Unfortunately
for Kyiv, previous experience suggests Trump is unwilling or unable to exert
real pressure on Putin.
“If Putin
and Trump reach an agreement directly, Europe will be faced with a fait
accompli. Kyiv – even more so,” said Roman Alekhin, a Russian war blogger, on
Sunday. It is exactly that prospect Ukraine’s leadership will be doing their
utmost to prevent in the days before Friday’s summit.

Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário