Alaska summit: a chance for peace in Ukraine?
US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin are to meet in Alaska on Friday to negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine. However, the basis for any agreement remains unclear. Trump has spoken of a "swapping of territories to the betterment of both". However, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky responded by saying that his country was interested in a peaceful solution but would not "give any land to the occupier".
A deal without Kyiv is no deal at all
Any agreement must not be reached over the Ukrainians' heads, The Irish Times admonishes:
“[Putin] wants a deal now that will effectively disarm Kyiv and put as much distance between it and allies safely confined to their own territories. No question of international peacekeeping or monitoring. In effect, permanent vulnerability. The prize this week for Putin would be a deal with Trump that Ukraine cannot accept, with the US then walking away and washing its hands of the conflict. Trump's promise of land for peace appears to make that a possible outcome. But a deal without Ukraine being present is not a deal at all.”
Really just a trap
A territorial compromise could end up dividing Ukraine, political scientist Volodymyr Fesenko writes in a Facebook post reposted by Gordonua.com:
“Putin is repeating the same sly manoeuvre he pulled off in May, when in response to the demands for a ceasefire he proposed direct peace talks with Ukraine in Istanbul. And for Trump, that was enough. Now he's offering a peace plan that's supposed to look like a compromise but is in fact a trap. If we reject it, there's a risk of a new cooling or even a conflict in relations with Trump. If we agree, we risk a domestic political crisis in Ukraine because a significant and active part of society is categorically opposed to such an 'exchange' [of territories].”
Possibility of a historic success
A breakthrough is definitely on the cards, political scientist Sébastien Boussois explains in Les Echos:
“Putin is seeking an honourable way out. ... His goal is no longer necessarily to gain control of all Ukraine, but to ensure that Russia loses neither face nor strategic control over Donbas and Crimea. He knows that time is against him: the Russian economy could run out of steam and the military losses are piling up. ... In this brutal reality, the meeting could produce a minimal but decisive framework: freezing the fighting, securing buffer zones and initiating a political process that is still in the making. It would not be peace, but it would be the end of the 'hot war'. And in the present context that would already be a historic success.”
Always the danger of someone stronger coming along
The law of the jungle must not be the basis for peace, Večernji list argues:
“Any solution based on the law of the strongest that negates all peaceful and civilised means of resolving conflicts through diplomacy also poses a threat to powerful states. Because just as in the sea, there is always a bigger fish that may come along. ... China [alongside the US] is stronger than Putin's Russia. We all know that Trump wants to expand his territory to Greenland. But what's less well known is that China is eyeing Siberia with great interest. ... Recognising the right of the strongest and 'freezing' conquered territory could backfire on Putin's Russia.”
Both sides mobilising their supporters
There are intense preparations behind the scenes in the run-up to the Trump-Putin meeting, fakti.bg observes:
“Otherwise, Putin would not have spoken on the phone with at least five leaders including Xi Jinping, Modi, Ramaphosa from South Africa and the heads of state of Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Belarus. ... JD Vance, who is currently on holiday in Scotland, is meeting with important European leaders such as Starmer, Macron and Merz and listening to their ideas for a ceasefire in Ukraine. Europe is isolated from the negotiating process between Russia and the US, much to the dismay of Kyiv and Brussels. However, good form demands that they be told a little so as to at least maintain the appearance of their being allies.”
A symbolic venue
Tagesspiegel points out that the location of the negotiations has a special symbolism:
“Alaska was sold by Russia to the US in the mid-19th century. This shows that borders can be moved. The choice of location alone must – intentionally or unintentionally – be a signal to Ukraine that peace must be 'bought' by ceding territory. But Alaska is also a message to the US. For many Russians, the region in the Arctic Circle remains firmly part of their homeland. The US state is a thorn in the Russian soul – much like Ukrainian Crimea.”