Trump-Putin meeting in Elmendorf-Richardson: the stakes of a ceasefire in Ukraine, geopolitical pressure, Ukraine sidelined, and prospects for inclusion.
The strategic context of the meeting
The Trump-Putin summit in Alaska is taking place on August 15, 2025 in a highly symbolic and strategic setting. The Elmendorf-Richardson military base, located near Anchorage, is hosting this unprecedented bilateral meeting on US soil since 2007 and the first since Donald Trump’s re-election in 2024. This choice is not insignificant: Alaska was Russian territory until 1867, when it was purchased by the United States, and retains deep historical significance in relations between Washington and Moscow.
The Trump-Putin summit in Alaska has a dual purpose: to assert the US position in close proximity to Russia while providing a neutral and highly secure venue. The military setting lends the meeting a solemn character and serves as a reminder that the dialogue is taking place against the backdrop of a power struggle and the war in Ukraine. Alaska, a crossroads between two continents and witness to past rivalries, thus serves as the backdrop for a mediation attempt whose implications extend far beyond the Ukrainian theater.
The ambitions of the meeting
Donald Trump has described the Trump-Putin summit in Alaska as a “listening session” aimed at obtaining a direct reading of Vladimir Putin’s position on ending the war between Russia and Ukraine. The stated objective is to identify possible room for maneuver for a ceasefire in Ukraine, presented as a preliminary step to possible broader negotiations.
The US president hopes that this meeting will serve as a starting point for a more inclusive dialogue, eventually involving Volodymyr Zelensky. The idea of a second meeting, potentially organized again in Alaska, is already circulating. This scenario would take the form of a tripartite summit, bringing together the three leaders to establish direct discussions on the conditions for ending the conflict.
However, Trump acknowledges that the chances of success are limited, estimating the probability of a concrete result at 25%. This figure, deliberately communicated to the press, illustrates the complexity of the undertaking. The military balance of power on the ground, the persistent mistrust between Moscow and Kiev, and pressure from Washington’s European allies weigh heavily on the prospects for compromise.
By presenting this summit as an exploratory step rather than a decisive moment, Trump is attempting to lower public expectations while maintaining diplomatic openness. This approach suggests that the meeting will not be aimed at producing an immediate agreement, but rather at establishing a clear diagnosis of Russian intentions and preparing a more structured format for negotiations involving all stakeholders.
Power games and expectations
Vladimir Putin is approaching the Trump-Putin summit in Alaska with a strategy that combines openness and political calculation. According to several observers, he could put a consensus nuclear agreement on the table, aimed at reviving strategic dialogue between Moscow and Washington, or propose a ceasefire in Ukraine in exchange for concessions. These concessions would be expected to be met with targeted relief from economic sanctions imposed on Russia, or even a broader bilateral commitment between the two powers, including security cooperation and implicit recognition of certain Russian positions.
For Donald Trump, the stakes are particularly high. On the one hand, he wants to secure a truce that can be presented as a major diplomatic breakthrough, in line with his campaign promises. On the other hand, he must preserve US strategic interests, avoid any perception of weakness towards Moscow, and reassure his European allies, who are already concerned about Washington engaging in a process they consider too favorable to Russia.
This standoff highlights two opposing diplomatic styles. Trump, a fan of direct exchanges and an unpredictable style based on intuition and personal relationships, is betting on the element of surprise and tactical flexibility. Putin, on the other hand, favors a methodical approach based on a cold assessment of the balance of power and potential gains. This divergence in methods influences not only the conduct of the discussion, but also the perception of international partners, who are attentive to the signals sent from Elmendorf-Richardson.
Strong criticism of Ukraine’s exclusion
The absence of Volodymyr Zelensky from the Trump-Putin summit in Alaska has sparked a wave of negative reactions, both in Ukraine and among European allies. The Ukrainian president, joined by leaders such as Emmanuel Macron, has insistently reiterated the principle of “nothing on Ukraine without Ukraine”, considered an essential foundation for any credible negotiation. This concept, which is firmly rooted in contemporary diplomacy, aims to prevent decisions that directly affect a country from being taken without its explicit consent.
For Kiev, being sidelined from bilateral talks between Washington and Moscow represents not only a lack of legitimacy, but also a real risk of seeing its interests compromised. Ukraine fears that a compromise negotiated in its absence would lead to the implicit recognition of Russian territorial gains, weakening its military and political position.
On the European side, Kiev’s exclusion is interpreted as a worrying signal. Several chancelleries fear that it will weaken Western unity vis-à-vis Moscow and encourage Russia to exploit divisions between allies. Donald Trump’s argument that this initial exchange is a preliminary “listening session” is unconvincing to critics, who believe that simply opening a dialogue on ending the war between Russia and Ukraine without the participation of the main country concerned could undermine the trust necessary for any lasting peace process.
The risks of unbalanced diplomacy
Critics, including former ambassador Ian Kelly, fear that the summit will provide too favorable a platform for Moscow. They believe there is a real risk that Ukraine will be forced to accept territorial concessions or see its ambitions to join NATO curtailed.
The summit is taking place at a time when the war in Ukraine is still ongoing, with pressure on the ground and negotiations stalling. US mediation in the Russia-Ukraine conflict is at the heart of the discussions. European allies are on the defensive, fearing a normalization of the Russian occupation.
Vladimir Putin’s strategic vision for the summit
For Vladimir Putin, the Trump-Putin summit in Alaska represents much more than a simple bilateral meeting: it is an opportunity to reposition Russia as a key player in the global security architecture, while consolidating its gains in Ukraine.
On the military and territorial front, Putin is seeking a form of conflict freeze that would allow him to maintain effective control over the areas conquered since 2014, particularly in the Donbass and southern Ukraine. A ceasefire in Ukraine brokered by Washington would give him the dual legitimacy of an agreement validated by the US and implicit, even tacit, recognition of the new front lines.
On the diplomatic front, Putin sees this summit as an opportunity to divide the Western bloc. By negotiating directly with Donald Trump, he is sending a signal to European capitals that key decisions can be taken without them. This approach is fueling tensions within NATO and reinforcing the perception that Russia can circumvent diplomatic isolation through bilateral channels with Washington.
Economically, the Kremlin wants targeted relief from sanctions that are stifling key sectors of the Russian economy, particularly energy and finance. In exchange for a gesture on the Ukrainian front, Putin could offer cooperation on energy security or strategic arms control, including a consensual nuclear agreement aimed at restoring a stable strategic dialogue.
War Wings Daily is an independant magazine.