WASHINGTON, D.C. – As US President Donald Trump prepares to meet with the Russian leader, Vladimir Putin, in Alaska on Friday, a wave of apprehension is spreading, with diplomats fearing a deal that undermines Ukraine’s sovereignty and analysts warning that the White House lacks a viable strategy to end the conflict.
European allies are sounding the alarm, insisting that any peace deal for Ukraine must not be decided without Kyiv at the negotiating table.
This diplomatic friction stems from growing concerns that the Trump administration may push for a settlement that forces Ukraine to cede territory, an idea the president has publicly referred to as “land swapping.”
Critics argue that such a move would not only be a betrayal of Kyiv but also set a dangerous precedent by rewarding Russian aggression and undermining the fundamental principle of sovereign borders.
“The Europeans underscore the need for security guarantees and Ukraine’s right to choose its future,” said Tyson Barker, a nonresident senior fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Europe Center.
Speaking to Kyiv Post from Europe, the analyst added that for a “just and lasting peace” to be achieved, it must respect international law and the principles of Ukraine’s independence and territorial integrity.
A statement from EU leaders further emphasized that the path to peace “cannot be decided without Ukraine” and that “international borders must not be changed by force.”
Geopolitical stage
The choice of Alaska as the summit’s venue is more than a matter of convenience. It is a deliberate statement with historical and strategic resonance. Retired ambassador Michael Sfraga, an Alaskan-born diplomat who served as the US Ambassador to the Arctic, told Kyiv Post that the location underscores the region’s growing importance.
“The state of Alaska is situated at the nexus of US domestic and foreign policy,” said Sfraga, now the Interim Chancellor at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
He added that Trump’s decision to meet with Putin there “underscores the geographic and geopolitical importance of Alaska in shaping and influencing discussions of regional and global importance.”
The location has also been viewed by some analysts as a symbolic gesture, given that the US purchased Alaska from Russia in 1867. This historical context, combined with the Arctic’s increasing strategic value, frames the summit as a pivotal moment for both the war in Ukraine and the future of the Arctic region.
Anchorage protests against Putin
The diplomatic friction has spilled over into the streets of Anchorage, where a protest is planned against Putin’s arrival.
Organized by the nonprofit group Stand Up Alaska, a rally is set for Thursday, the day before the summit, to protest the presence of what they call an “international war criminal” on American soil, given that the International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued a warrant for Putin’s arrest on charges of war crimes.
“We’re here to send a clear message to both Donald Trump and Putin: Alaska stands firmly against authoritarianism,” a spokesperson for Stand Up Alaska said.
The protest adds a vocal, grassroots element to the international pressure on the two leaders, reminding them that the stakes of the conflict are personal for many and that the human cost of the war remains a critical issue.
‘Feel-out’ meeting faces skepticism
As the White House works to manage expectations for the highly anticipated summit, Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Tuesday pushed back against critics who see the meeting itself as a concession to Putin.
“For President Trump, a meeting is not a concession,” Rubio said in an interview, characterizing the summit as a crucial “feel-out meeting” where Trump intends to personally assess Putin’s intentions.
“The President feels like, ‘Look, I’ve got to look at this guy across the table. I need to see him face to face,’” Rubio said.
However, this approach has been met with sharp skepticism from some experts who believe it is dangerously naive.
Yuriy Boyechko, the CEO of the US-based humanitarian organization Hope for Ukraine, told Kyiv Post that the meeting “won’t bring a ceasefire to Ukraine even temporarily.”
He pointed to recent intelligence from President Zelensky about Russia relocating troops, calling it a clear indication that “Russia is not ready for peace.”
Boyechko drew a parallel to Ukraine’s political history, noting that when Zelensky was running for office, he had stated that “if he only looks at Putin’s eye, war will stop.”
Boyechko argued, “Just as Zelensky did not make the war stop after looking at Putin’s eyes during the Paris summit, nothing will change about the war in Ukraine after Trump feels Putin out in Alaska.”
He warned that Putin is a “masterful manipulator” who will be well-prepared with “well-prepared, planned, and rehearsed talking points,” and that Trump “will most likely fall for Putin’s tricks.”
Boyechko further argued that Trump had already shown a “serious weakness” by not implementing sanctions on August 8, a weakness that Putin will certainly exploit during the meeting.
Immense chasm in demands
The core challenge facing the summit is the immense chasm between the two sides’ demands. Russian demands, as reported by the media, include formal recognition of its annexation of Crimea and four other Ukrainian regions, as well as Ukraine’s commitment to neutrality and a ban on foreign troops.
In stark contrast, President Zelensky has consistently rejected giving up land and insists on the return of all deported children and a full prisoner exchange. He has stated that any agreement without Ukraine’s involvement would be a “dead decision” that “will never work.”
The analysis of the summit’s potential outcomes is therefore fraught with uncertainty. While Trump may believe in his ability to broker a deal, the fundamental disagreements between Russia and Ukraine, along with the deep skepticism from European leaders and diplomatic experts, suggest that a lasting peace will be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve without significant concessions from one or both sides.
The world is watching to see if Trump’s unconventional approach can succeed where traditional diplomacy has failed, or if it will simply provide a stage for a symbolic meeting with no tangible results.