Trump-Putin Meeting in Alaska: No Peace for Ukraine

Trump-Putin Meeting in Alaska: No Peace for Ukraine

The Alaska summit between US President Donald Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin, which was followed with tension and hope by the international community, ended without concrete results for Ukraine. The long-awaited meeting, which was supposed to lay the foundations for a peaceful settlement of the war, instead left Kyiv with a painful sense of diplomatic defeat and strengthened Moscow's position on the world stage. For many in Ukraine, the event was perceived as an information victory for the Kremlin, which underscores Kyiv's continued isolation.

Tense Anticipation and Bitter Disappointment

On the night of August 16, as news from Anchorage spread, a large part of Ukrainian society could not fall asleep. People in the country were hoping for a serious diplomatic breakthrough that would end the prolonged conflict. At the same time, these expectations were accompanied by deep fears that a potential ceasefire could come at too high a price — namely, with territorial concessions from Kyiv. Unfortunately, the morning did not bring relief, but only disappointment. Instead of achieving its goal of peace, the Alaska meeting became a symbolic demonstration of diplomatic activity that brought visible benefits only to Russia, while the war continues.

"A photo shoot instead of solutions" – criticisms from Ukrainian experts

The results of the meeting provoked a sharp reaction among Ukrainian analysts.

"There are no real results for Ukraine – and thank God that no radical agreements were signed. But the summit itself was an extremely successful information operation by Russia"

, commented international expert Oleksandr Kraiev for DW. He describes Putin's skills as "surgical precision," through which the Russian leader managed to tell his American counterpart everything he wanted to hear to achieve his own goals.

Ivan Us from the Center for Foreign Policy Studies at the NISD gives a similar assessment. He claims that the Kremlin's real goal was not peace in Ukraine, but the removal of the international isolation in which Russia has been since the beginning of the invasion. According to him, this meeting was used by Putin as a platform for a return to major diplomacy, without having to make serious concessions.

Moscow Shifts Responsibility

Immediately after the end of the talks, Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chairman of Russia's Security Council, was quick to state that a

"fully-fledged mechanism for meetings"

had been restored between Moscow and Washington. He also emphasized that

"negotiations are possible without preconditions and simultaneously with the continuation of the SMO"

, using the cynical abbreviation for the ongoing war. Medvedev, like other officials, shifted the responsibility for the lack of progress onto Kyiv and Europe, accusing them of being unwilling to accept Russia's conditions. This narrative, broadcast by the Russian side, seeks to show a readiness for dialogue while firmly refusing to stop its military actions.

Zelenskyy and Concerns in Kyiv

Against this backdrop, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced that his country supports Trump's proposal for a tripartite meeting between the US, Ukraine, and Russia. He stated that he expects to meet with his American counterpart in Washington on August 18.

"Ukraine is ready to work as productively as possible for the sake of peace"

, Zelenskyy wrote on social media, trying to show that his country is open to diplomacy, despite all the challenges.

However, political figures in Ukraine, including Iryna Herashchenko from the European Solidarity party, warn that the Alaska meeting could be used to put pressure on Kyiv. She expresses fears that Ukraine will be forced to accept

"formulations such as “territories for security guarantees”"

, which will allow Moscow to legitimize its demands and present its aggressive actions as a basis for negotiations.

According to political scientist Vadym Denysenko, Putin did not manage to impose the scheme of

"business with the US in exchange for Ukrainian territories,"

but he did win the most important thing – time.

"In Alaska, they agreed... to agree. This only prolonged the game, but without a real breakthrough"

, he writes, emphasizing that the meeting was more of a tactical move than a decisive step towards peace.

Public Reaction: “The Bloody Red Carpet”

One of the most impressive and outrageous moments for Ukrainian society were the images from Anchorage where Vladimir Putin was greeted with an honor guard and a red carpet. This display of tribute to the Russian leader, whose country is responsible for a prolonged and brutal war, caused a wave of anger and condemnation on social media. Many described this symbol of tribute as a

"bloody red path."

"History remembers not only the killers, but also those who greet them with honors"

, wrote Mustafa Nayyem, a former MP and prominent public figure, expressing the widespread feeling of insult and disappointment.

Ultimately, the conclusion of many Ukrainian observers is that the Alaska meeting brought more chaos, symbolism, and ambiguity than real solutions. Peace remains distant, and Moscow seeks to extract maximum political and diplomatic dividends from its very presence on the international stage, without showing any readiness to stop its aggression.