In a significant development on the international front, US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin have agreed to meet on August 15 in Alaska to discuss achieving peace in Ukraine.
As part of these discussions, Russia has articulated conditions for ending its military operations in Ukraine.
A Bloomberg report has revealed that the Kremlin’s proposed terms would effectively solidify Russia’s control over territories it has seized during the ongoing military invasion, in exchange for halting hostilities.
These terms also require Ukraine to withdraw its armed forces from the areas it currently occupies in the Luhansk and Donetsk provinces, transferring control to Russia.
The specifics regarding the territorial settlement under discussion between Russia and the United States remain ambiguous.
On August 8, President Trump remarked, “We’re going to get some back, and we’re going to get some switched. There’ll be some swapping of territories to the betterment of both.”
In addition, the Trump Administration is in consultation with Ukrainian and European leaders to examine Russia’s proposals.
However, there is a notable apprehension in Kyiv regarding the potential pressure Trump might exert on Ukraine to accept whatever terms he negotiates with Putin.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has signaled resistance to this idea, highlighting that the Ukrainian Constitution mandates that any alterations to territorial boundaries would need to be ratified through a plebiscite sanctioned by the parliament.
Analyzing how Trump arrived at this juncture, it is clear that over recent weeks, the US president has been consistently applying pressure on the Kremlin.
He persuaded NATO allies to elevate their defense spending to 5 percent of their GDP over the next decade, which has been a crucial step in enhancing collective security and, critically, military assistance to Ukraine.
Furthermore, Trump has authorized the sale of US weaponry, including advanced systems, to NATO allies for subsequent transfer to Ukraine.
Amid these developments, the article notes that Trump had set a firm deadline for Russia to endorse a ceasefire.
Initially, he offered a window of fifty days for compliance, later shortening it to ten days, culminating on August 8.
Following an August 6 meeting between US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Putin, during which Kremlin terms for a ceasefire were presented, Trump enforced tariffs on India for buying Russian oil, amplifying the pressure on Moscow.
Despite the absence of a ceasefire by the August 8 deadline, Trump refrained from imposing additional sanctions as discussions continue with the Kremlin.
The Trump Administration has expressed satisfaction over the Kremlin’s apparent willingness to engage in meaningful negotiations, an outcome that has been facilitated by the pressure applied since June.
Nevertheless, this moment also reflects the considerable concessions that the US may have made without solid commitments from Moscow, beyond merely ceasing hostilities as part of a proposed ceasefire, rather than a definitive peace agreement.
In essence, the concessions regarding territory favor Russia initially, while substantive matters regarding Ukraine’s security concerns are expected to be addressed in future discussions.
These security matters are essential for the White House, as Trump aims for a sustainable peace that ensures Ukraine’s stability and security.
Prominent among these concerns is Russia’s acceptance of ongoing military support for Ukraine from the US and NATO countries, along with the presence of European peacekeeping forces in Ukraine.
The discussions also entail tactical elements.
During the negotiations with Russia regarding the ceasefire, the Trump Administration has made pivotal concessions.
These include allowing the Kremlin to evade the August 8 deadline following sanctions on India and accommodating Putin’s insistence on excluding Zelenskyy from the forthcoming talks with Trump concerning Ukraine’s future.
This arrangement evokes comparisons with the 1945 Yalta Summit, where the US, the Soviet Union, and Britain made decisions affecting a significant part of Europe without consulting the nations involved.
Such concessions from the US may inadvertently bolster Putin’s stance, encouraging further demands and fewer concessions in return.
Putin’s overarching objective likely remains to establish effective political control over Ukraine.
The current terms being discussed with Trump illustrate what Putin is willing to concede presently, without indicating future compliance.
It appears that the Trump administration might have overstated its initial optimism based on Witkoff’s account of discussions in Moscow.
This is further reinforced by revelations that Witkoff misinterpreted Putin’s comments, believing that Russia was ready to withdraw forces from regions such as Kherson and Zaporizhzhia in Ukraine.
Meanwhile, US Vice President JD Vance has been engaged in consultations over the weekend in the UK with representatives from Britain, Ukraine, and other European nations, who are advocating for a full ceasefire, no territorial concessions prior to a ceasefire, and robust security support for Ukraine.
Currently, the White House has re-entered discussions about potentially inviting Zelenskyy to the Alaska meeting, albeit in a noncommittal manner, and expresses an openness to this idea.
It appears they are trying to influence the Kremlin’s willingness to accommodate this request.
Whether the White House will insist on Zelenskyy’s inclusion could signal Trump’s commitment to taking the necessary steps toward fostering a stable peace at the upcoming summit.
It’s understandable that Putin would prefer a bilateral agreement with Trump that would bypass the involvement of Europe or Ukraine.
Such a deal could then be presented to Kyiv and European capitals as a fait accompli.
However, since Trump aims for a lasting peace, incorporating Ukraine and Europe in the dialogues could facilitate achieving this goal.
At the very least, the White House should demand strict reciprocity in negotiations with Russia.
If Moscow seeks acknowledgment of its control over Ukrainian territories as a prerequisite for a ceasefire, it ought to counterbalance this with strong commitments to enhance Ukrainian security.
Trump can emphasize this reciprocity by utilizing the negotiation period to announce another substantial arms sale to NATO allies designated for Ukraine.
Moreover, he should convey to Putin that should the assaults on Ukrainian civilians and infrastructure persist post-meeting in Alaska, further secondary sanctions will be imposed.
This strategic approach could pave the way towards achieving a more stable peace.
image source from：atlanticcouncil
