What will Trump and Putin have to say in Alaska?
All eyes are on Alaska, where Donald Trump is meeting Vladimir Putin this Friday - the first such encounter between a sitting US president and the Russian President since 2021. The focus of the talks will be ways to end the war in Ukraine. Commentators alternate between optimism and doubt.
When unpredictability meets cynicism
Corriere della Sera hopes that a realistic solution will emerge:
“After three years of diplomatic efforts and failures, the conditions seem to be in place for genuine negotiations to begin. This is an important opportunity for Ukraine, for Europe, for the United States and also for Moscow. It is a direct confrontation between Trump's unpredictability and Putin's time-proven cynicism. ... But if things go badly this time too, we can safely assume that the Russian president will be mainly to blame. ... Because Putin must decide whether he too wants to embrace realism or let everything fall apart.”
Propelled by dreams of world power
In fact Putin is pursuing an even bigger plan, the Süddeutsche Zeitung's Moscow correspondent Silke Bigalke points out:
“A Ukraine that once again circles in the Kremlin's orbit is part of it, but also Russia's place in the world. ... Even now, all the speculation in Russian media is less about land swaps and more about the significance of the two-way meeting for better relations with the US. Their value for Putin can hardly be overestimated. It would be a boon for him if Trump afterwards repeats what Putin has told him about Kyiv's guilt, Europe's hostility towards Russia and the American deep state. When Putin talks about a multipolar world, he means a world in which Russia once again has influence everywhere. In which no one can get around it. Alaska is just a starting point for Putin.”
US president could be fobbed off with tidbits
Eesti Päevaleht fears Putin will have sussed out his dialogue partner's weaknesses ahead of the meeting:
“Trump is probably hoping to pressure Putin into at least symbolic concessions which he can then present as a victory. One of the biggest risks is that this is precisely what Putin may be prepared to offer him. ... Trump tends to approach such meetings over-confidently and with little preparation. With Putin, on the other hand, there can be no doubt that he will be well prepared. It's easy to press the right buttons when you know your interlocutor's weak points - for example, his burning desire for a Nobel Peace Prize.”
Ceasefire possible because both sides need it
Economic constraints may push Putin to agree to a ceasefire, blogger Ivan Yakovina writes on Facebook:
“I think some kind of a truce will be agreed in the US. Trump urgently needs it. And Putin also desperately needs at least some of the sanctions to be lifted in order to save the economy. So both sides may - reluctantly - give each other what they need. ... I admit that right now it's hard to imagine Putin stopping his troops. But he must understand that without a functioning economy, without money, there will be no troops. There will be nothing at all.”
Europe has done what it could - not much
Info.cz comments on the lacking influence of European representatives following their online conference with Trump on Wednesday:
“The result is cautious optimism regarding the implementation of their demands: namely to focus solely on a ceasefire at the first meeting and postpone any negotiations on land swaps to the next phase, which will inevitably involve the Ukrainians and, if possible, Europeans. ... European leaders have done what they could under the circumstances. But they know that they have no influence over what happens when Trump and Putin meet one-to-one.”
You can't trade people for peace
The residents of the occupied territories must not be forgotten in discussions about territorial concessions, warns Petro Andriushchenko, head of the Centre for the Study of the Occupation, in a Telegram post republished by Gordonua.com:
“Let me remind you that more than six million Ukrainians live in these territories. Roughly three million of our fellow citizens live in the land occupied since 2022 alone. ... That's why any mention of a 'territorial compromise' is first and foremost about people. Our people, whom some would prefer to forget here and now. That must not happen. Just think, how could we possibly tell them: 'That's it, we traded you for peace.'”
Anchorage is not Munich
Comparisons with historical agreements such as Yalta or Munich in the run-up to the Alaska summit are misleading, says The Times:
“None of these historical antecedents augurs well for Ukraine or Europe. But the good news is that none of them is very plausible, either. ... The current geopolitical conditions, and the aims of the US president, are very different from those that obtained during those previous perilous moments in history. Putin in 2025 is no Hitler in 1938. He may have similar designs on his neighbours but he is in no position to achieve them.”