 |
| Trump and Putin discuss Ukraine peace deal in Alaska |
President Trump backs a final peace deal over an immediate ceasefire after his Alaska meeting with Vladimir Putin, marking a clear pivot in U.S. policy toward the Ukraine war.
The change came after a one-on-one summit at an Alaska air base where both leaders spent hours in talks that produced no immediate halt to fighting, but did shift the focus to negotiating a full peace agreement.
In plain terms, the U.S. position moved from pressing for an immediate halt in hostilities to pressing for a broad settlement that would, at least on paper, settle the war endgame and the lines of control.
That shift matters because a ceasefire stops the shooting first and lets talks follow, while a search for a full peace deal lets armies keep fighting while leaders haggle over borders and guarantees. The difference changes the balance on the ground.
Washington’s move prompted fast, sharp responses across Europe and in Kyiv, where leaders warned that any deal must not be written over Ukraine’s head or reward gains taken by force. European capitals insisted Ukraine must be at the table.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has said repeatedly that Kyiv must be the central party in any settlement, and his office pushed for stronger penalties on Moscow if Russia resists a real, verifiable ceasefire. Those lines have not budged.
Inside the White House briefing and private talks, officials framed the Alaska meeting as an effort to open a path to peace, not to hand Moscow a prize. But allies and analysts saw the pivot as handing Russia room to keep pressing on the battlefield.
That outcome was no accident. Russia welcomed the tone that grew from the meeting, and the Kremlin called the talks constructive while pointing to an apparent thaw in the diplomatic cold shoulder it had faced since 2022. The optics favored Moscow.
News wires reported that President Trump told aides and allies he wants a direct, final peace deal, and that he believes such a deal could be reached if both sides agree to trade territory and written guarantees. The emphasis shifted from immediate ceasefire mechanics to long-term settlement mechanics.
U.S. officials said parts of the discussion aimed to secure promises of future security guarantees for Ukraine, separate from NATO obligations. That idea unsettles partners in Europe who view collective defense rules and the integrity of borders as core principles.
European leaders issued a joint stance that the path to peace cannot be decided without Ukraine, and they warned against any settlement that rewrites borders by force or rewards territorial grabs. That diplomatic rebuke landed quickly after the summit.
In Kyiv, officials and many analysts saw the Alaska talks as risky because they could undercut Ukraine’s bargaining position while fighting remains intense along key front lines. The fear is that a process that treats a peace accord as the next step allows Russia to consolidate gains first.
For many foreign policy hands, the central question is simple and sharp: who sets the agenda for peace? If Kyiv and its allies set the terms, a deal might protect Ukraine’s borders and independence. If not, the result might freeze Russian gains into the new map.
President Trump signaled willingness to press for a three-way meeting that includes Zelenskyy, Putin, and himself to try to land a deal sooner rather than later. That proposal drew cautious interest and strong skepticism from European capitals.
Ukrainian officials agreed to a U.S. meeting in Washington soon after the Alaska talks, seeking face time with the president to insist that any process must involve Kyiv fully and preserve Ukraine’s sovereign choices. That meeting was set against a tense backdrop.
Military analysts warned that negotiating while combat continues has real costs: it gives the stronger battlefield side leverage to demand territory and papers that lock in those gains. That logic explains much of the alarm in capitals that backed Kyiv.
On the other hand, proponents of a fast diplomatic push argue that stalled wars can drag on for years and that a push for a compact peace could save lives and stabilize the region if it is honest and enforceable. That case depends on hard checks and visible enforcement steps.
Across the Atlantic, leaders reminded the United States that their support for Ukraine has been the glue for Western unity, and they urged Washington to keep that unity intact while seeking any settlement. The message was to avoid unilateral moves that weaken the allied front.
A number of veteran diplomats watching the Alaska meeting said the optics and timing help Russia politically, giving Moscow a chance to show it can talk its way out of isolation while continuing military operations. That political gain is a real strategic edge for the Kremlin.
Back in Washington, the administration faces a narrow path: push hard for a peace deal without making Kyiv feel betrayed or leaving Europe with hard choices about continued aid and alignment. That juggling act will define the next weeks of diplomacy.
The stakes are high for ordinary people on both sides of the conflict. For Ukrainians living under bombardment, any delay in a real stop to the fighting costs lives and homes. For Russians, a fast diplomatic victory can be spun for domestic support, even if fighting grinds on.
So what comes next is both diplomatic grind and political theater: a series of phone calls, meetings, and pressure plays designed to test whether Moscow will bind itself to terms that leave Ukraine whole, or whether negotiations will become a cover for frozen occupation lines.
For now, the Alaska summit has done three clear things at once: it moved the U.S. emphasis from ceasefire logistics to a final deal, it burned a political bridge with some allies who want Kyiv central to talks, and it gave the Kremlin a public-relations lift. Those are plain facts to track.
Readers should expect more high-level diplomacy in the coming days, and they should watch for whether any agreement includes real, verifiable measures to stop the fighting while talks continue. That verification will be the true test of whether a peace push saves lives or simply freezes a new and brittle status quo.