Trump and Putin’s Alaska Gambit: A High-Stakes Summit to End the Ukraine War?

On August 15, 2025, the icy landscapes of Alaska will host a historic summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, a meeting charged with the potential to reshape the Russia-Ukraine war—now grinding through its third year since Russia’s 2022 invasion.

The choice of Alaska, a former Russian territory sold to the U.S. in 1867, is laden with symbolism: for Putin, a nod to Russia’s imperial past; for Trump, a bold assertion of American dominance on home soil. But with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy excluded and European allies wary, the summit risks becoming a diplomatic tightrope walk, balancing Trump’s promise of peace against the realities of Putin’s ambitions.

Here’s what’s at stake, what the leaders want, and whether a deal is even possible.

The Stakes: A War-Weary World Watches

The Russia-Ukraine conflict has claimed tens of thousands of lives, displaced millions, and disrupted global energy and food markets. Russia occupies roughly 18% of Ukraine’s territory, including parts of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson, while Ukraine’s recent battlefield losses—Russia gained 6,000 km² since 2023—have weakened its negotiating position.

Trump, now over 200 days into his term, faces pressure to deliver on his campaign pledge to end the war “within 24 hours,” a promise that looks increasingly ambitious with his approval rating at 38%. Putin, meanwhile, sees the summit as a chance to break his diplomatic isolation and cement territorial gains, leveraging Russia’s economic resilience and nuclear clout.

The exclusion of Ukraine is a glaring issue. Zelenskyy has called negotiations without Kyiv “dead decisions,” warning they undermine peace and echo historical betrayals like the 1945 Yalta Conference. European leaders, including EU High Representative Kaja Kallas, insist on Ukraine’s territorial integrity, making any deal without Kyiv’s consent a potential fracture point for NATO unity.

What Each Leader Wants?

– Trump’s Playbook: Trump is wielding economic leverage, threatening secondary sanctions on nations like India and China for buying Russian oil, which funds Putin’s war machine. Recent moves, like 50% tariffs on Indian imports, signal his willingness to play hardball. Domestically, he needs a win to shore up support, with only 64% of his base approving his Ukraine policy. He’s floated “land swapping” as a solution, calling it “complicated” but feasible, and may push for a ceasefire to avoid deeper U.S. involvement while opening Arctic energy deals for American firms.

– Putin’s Endgame: For Putin, the summit is a propaganda victory, restoring his global stature after years of isolation. He seeks to legitimize Russia’s control over annexed regions and secure Ukraine’s neutrality to block NATO expansion. Territorial swaps—ceding small areas in Sumy or Kharkiv for Donbas strongholds like Slavyansk—could be on the table, alongside economic relief from sanctions. Putin’s battlefield momentum gives him little incentive to compromise, but he may offer a temporary truce to buy time.

– Ukraine’s Red Lines: Zelenskyy demands full restoration of Ukraine’s 1991 borders, including Crimea, and ironclad security guarantees. Ukraine’s constitution bans territorial concessions without a referendum, and public sentiment fiercely opposes ceding land. Kyiv’s drone strikes and battlefield innovations show resilience, but without U.S. military aid, its leverage is waning.

Possible Outcomes: Deal or Deadlock?

The summit could yield several scenarios, each with profound implications:

1. Ceasefire with Territorial Swaps:

Putin might propose Ukraine cede parts of Donetsk and Luhansk for a halt in offensives elsewhere. Trump’s openness to “land swapping” suggests he could entertain this, but Ukraine’s rejection—backed by its constitution and European allies—makes it unlikely. Such a deal risks alienating NATO and emboldening Putin for future aggression, as over a third of peace agreements since 1975 have collapsed.

2. Temporary Ceasefire:

A freeze along current lines could be a face-saving compromise, allowing Trump to claim progress and Putin to pause without conceding gains. Zelenskyy has noted Russia’s openness to a ceasefire, but without security guarantees, it’s a shaky truce that could let Russia regroup. This scenario is moderately likely but lacks legitimacy without Ukraine’s involvement.

3. No Deal:

If Putin demands maximalist terms—like annexing four regions and Ukraine’s neutrality—and Trump refuses to pressure Kyiv, talks could collapse. Trump has signaled he’s ready to walk away, as he did with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un. This is the most likely outcome given the wide gap between Russia’s demands and Ukraine’s red lines, potentially leading to escalated U.S. sanctions or arms support for Ukraine.

4. Side Deals on Nuclear or Arctic Issues:

The summit could pivot to broader issues like nuclear arms control or Arctic resource development, with 13% of global oil reserves at stake. While tempting, this risks sidelining Ukraine and appearing as appeasement, with low likelihood given Putin’s focus on territorial gains.

Risks and Realities

The summit carries significant risks. Excluding Ukraine and Europe could fracture NATO unity and evoke a “Yalta 2.0” betrayal, strengthening authoritarian narratives globally. Putin gains a propaganda boost simply by attending, and any deal rewarding aggression could set a precedent for conflicts in places like Taiwan or the Baltics. Trump risks domestic backlash if the summit echoes the criticized 2018 Helsinki meeting, while his sanctions on allies like India could disrupt global trade and strain partnerships.

Putin’s history of breaking ceasefires, like the Minsk agreements, suggests any deal is a tactical pause, not a resolution. Trump’s belief in personal rapport with Putin may underestimate Russia’s strategic deception, while Ukraine’s resilience and Europe’s resolve limit his room to maneuver. A deal without Kyiv’s consent is likely to unravel, leaving the war unresolved and Trump’s legacy at risk.

A Path Forward

For a sustainable outcome, Trump must include Ukraine and NATO allies in follow-up talks, potentially through a trilateral summit. Announcing a major weapons package or tougher sanctions post-summit could strengthen Ukraine’s hand and deter Russian advances. Any ceasefire needs robust monitoring, prisoner repatriation, and reconstruction funds from frozen Russian assets. Focusing on Arctic or nuclear deals risks diluting the urgency of Ukraine’s plight and should be avoided. If Putin stonewalls, Trump must be prepared to walk away, using the summit to refine U.S. strategy rather than forcing a flawed agreement.

Conclusion: A Summit on Thin Ice

The Trump-Putin Alaska summit is a high-stakes gamble with long odds for a lasting Ukraine peace deal. Putin’s battlefield gains and economic resilience give him leverage, while Trump’s domestic pressures and Ukraine’s exclusion complicate the path to agreement. A temporary ceasefire or deadlock is most likely, but any deal must prioritize Ukraine’s sovereignty and NATO unity to avoid destabilizing the global order. As the world watches, the summit’s outcome will test Trump’s dealmaking prowess, Putin’s strategic calculus, and the resilience of international alliances in a fractured world.