In a move that has raised alarm in Kyiv and across European capitals, US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin will meet in Alaska next week to discuss a potential peace agreement to end the war in Ukraine – but without Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the table. The summit, scheduled for August 15, could involve proposals requiring Ukraine to make significant territorial concessions to Russia, a prospect that Ukrainian officials have already rejected outright.
The meeting, confirmed by both Trump and Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov, comes after months of behind-the-scenes contacts between Washington and Moscow. The pace of diplomacy accelerated last week when Trump’s envoy, Steve Witkoff, spent three hours in Moscow with Putin, emerging with a new proposal from the Russian leader. According to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the proposal included “concrete examples” of what Russia would demand in exchange for ending hostilities.
While Trump has left open whether Zelensky will attend, a source familiar with the talks has said the Ukrainian leader has not received an invitation. The exclusion is viewed in Kyiv as a troubling sign that the US and Russia could strike a deal over Ukraine’s future without its direct participation. In a social media post on August 9, Zelensky warned that “peace deals reached without Ukraine” would be “stillborn” and “unworkable,” adding that Ukrainians would “not gift their land to the occupier.”
Trump has hinted that any agreement might involve a “swapping of territories,” acknowledging that such terms would be “difficult to accept” for Ukraine and its European allies. The specifics remain murky. Ukraine currently holds a small area of Russian territory in the western Kursk region – around four square miles – while Russia controls roughly one-fifth of Ukraine, including Crimea and parts of four eastern and southern regions: Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia.
Moscow’s proposal, according to individuals familiar with the talks, demands Kyiv’s full relinquishment of the Donbas region – comprising Luhansk and Donetsk – in exchange for a ceasefire. The proposal also reportedly leaves open Russia’s claims to occupied territories in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, which secure its strategic “land bridge” to Crimea and include the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, Europe’s largest. Russia seeks formal recognition of its annexation of Crimea, which it seized in 2014.
Ukraine, however, has constitutional barriers to ceding territory, a point Trump himself acknowledged. “He’s not authorized to do certain things,” Trump said of Zelensky. “I said, ‘Well, you’re going to have to get it fast because we’re getting very close to a deal.’”
Putin’s war aims have not shifted, according to analysts such as Tatiana Stanovaya of the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center. Moscow still seeks a demilitarized Ukraine, the removal of what it deems an “anti-Russian” regime in Kyiv, and a guarantee of Ukrainian neutrality. The Kremlin has framed its territorial seizures as reclaiming historic Russian lands, and Putin has made clear that any settlement must legitimize these gains.
Russia’s current battlefield position is stronger than in previous rounds of talks. Ukrainian forces have been pushed back from gains made in 2024, losing much of the Russian territory they had briefly held. This, combined with battlefield attrition and political fatigue among Ukraine’s allies, has bolstered Putin’s confidence that he can dictate terms from a position of strength.
The Alaska location avoids the complications of Putin’s arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court, which would have been an issue in many European capitals. It also underscores Trump’s preference for high-profile, bilateral negotiations, free from the constraints of multilateral formats that have characterized much of Western diplomacy on Ukraine.
Initially, some Western officials envisioned a sequence of meetings – first Trump with Putin, then Trump with Zelensky, followed by a three-way summit. However, Russia has categorically rejected a direct meeting between Putin and Zelensky, which would imply recognition of Zelensky as an equal counterpart. Ushakov made clear that Moscow’s priority was ensuring a “successful and productive” bilateral session with Trump, leaving any Ukrainian involvement for an undefined future.
This stance reflects the Kremlin’s longstanding refusal to treat Zelensky as a legitimate negotiating partner, in line with its broader narrative that Ukraine’s government is a Western-installed regime.
European leaders are increasingly uneasy about the prospect of a US-Russia deal that sidelines Ukraine. A senior European official expressed concern that Trump has so far avoided exerting pressure on Putin to compromise, remarking, “For all the bluster, Trump has not put a single iota of pressure on Putin – yet. Zero, zip.”
The fear in European capitals is that a bilateral accord between Washington and Moscow could formalize Russian territorial gains without providing Ukraine with adequate security guarantees, leaving the door open for renewed aggression. This was a key criticism of earlier proposals, such as the Witkoff plan floated in April, which called for lifting US sanctions on Russia, recognizing Russian-occupied territory, and declaring Ukraine neutral – without provisions to prevent future Russian offensives.
For Zelensky, the looming Alaska summit is a test of both diplomatic resilience and political legitimacy at home. His government faces mounting pressure from a war-weary public and a deteriorating military situation, but also legal and constitutional barriers to making territorial concessions. Even if invited to future talks, the Ukrainian president would have little room to maneuver without risking a domestic backlash.
For Trump, the meeting represents a chance to deliver on his pledge to “end the war quickly” – a promise that plays well with his domestic base but risks alienating traditional US allies if it comes at Ukraine’s expense. The Alaska summit could also serve as a high-profile demonstration of his deal-making style, though whether it produces a viable peace agreement is far from certain.
For Putin, the calculus is simpler: the summit offers an opportunity to secure recognition of Russia’s gains without conceding on its broader strategic aims. By excluding Ukraine from the negotiations, Moscow not only reinforces its refusal to legitimize Zelensky’s government but also increases the likelihood that any agreement reached will tilt in its favor.
As the date approaches, one fact remains clear: without Ukraine’s voice in the room, any peace deal risks being not just politically fragile but fundamentally flawed. The Alaska meeting may mark the beginning of a new phase in the war – one where the fate of Ukraine is shaped less by those fighting for it, and more by those negotiating over it from thousands of miles away.