Ukraine: what can the Alaska summit achieve?

The Tages-Anzeiger doesn't trust Putin:

“From a pragmatic point of view, one could argue that it would be best for Kyiv to give up occupied territories - despite the official rhetoric - if this would lead to real peace. However, all experiences with dictator Putin over the last few decades shows that his word is not to be trusted, especially when it comes to Ukraine. At least as things stand today, Kyiv has no choice but to rely on more Western weapons and its own soldiers, who are holding out on the front line with a heroic will to fight.”

Europe should aim for an end to the war even without Zelensky, writes international relations expert Johannes Varwick in Der Freitag:

“At any rate, after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's uncompromising statement at the weekend it should be clear that he is not prepared to make any concessions. He had the chance to outline the cornerstones of a political solution and prepare the Ukrainian public for compromises, but it was all slogans about persevering. ... It is now particularly important that 'the' Europeans refrain from sabotaging the formation of a realpolitik front on the Ukraine issue and instead support the US in its diplomatic initiative - against Kyiv's will if need be. It's time to focus on what is feasible.”

Visão fears that Alaska could be a repeat of what happened in February 1945:

“This is not a summit meeting. It's a divvying up. Like in Yalta, in the [now Russian-occupied] Crimea, when they divided Europe into zones of influence and occupation. That was a disgraceful summit. Once again the smaller, strife-torn party is being left out: Ukraine. ... No one knows what Alaska will produce: something historic or just another dirty deal. One party wants the territory, full stop. The other wants to present itself as a glorious peacemaker in a war that has already caused hundreds of thousands of deaths and injuries. Too bad for a country that simply wanted to live in peace and join the EU and Nato.”

Mladá fronta dnes sees the following scenario as a possibility:

“The war will be frozen, not ended. Ukraine will lose the occupied territories because unfortunately there is no force that can drive the Russians back. But Ukraine will not really lose them. They will be controlled de facto by the Russians, but the West and Kyiv will not recognise this and will pretend instead that legally they belong to Ukraine. It would mean an end to the war, but not peace. No formal peace treaty would be needed, so the territories occupied by Moscow would not be legally recognised as Russian. The question of ownership could be postponed for months, years or decades. In Korea it's been like that for more than seventy years.”

US business interests play a key role in the negotiations, writes Jean-Christophe Ploquin, editor-in-chief of La Croix:

“The summit in Alaska will partly reflect this logic of peace through business. Among other things, Washington and Kyiv signed an agreement in April offering US companies privileged access to rare earths, lithium, graphite and titanium from Ukrainian sources. The US now has a good reason to preserve the country's security, at least in the 80 percent of its territory that escapes Russia's clutches. However, the remaining 20 percent is not just an insignificant variable.”

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.”

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].”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”