Alaskan Summit: Trump and Putin’s Contentious Meeting Over Potential Ukrainian Territory Swap Leaves Peace Deal Uncertain

The highly anticipated summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin takes place this Friday, with the primary objective being to bring an end to the ongoing conflict that ensued following Russia’s full-scale invasion of 2022 in Ukraine. A potential peace agreement would necessitate territorial concessions, as Russia currently controls almost a fifth of Ukrainian land.

Last week, President Trump proposed a ceasefire deal involving “some swapping of territories,” though the specific regions he referenced remain unclear. Ukraine has emphatically rejected the idea of ceding any parts of its territory. Similarly, Russia has also expressed reservations about such proposals.

In a recent call with European leaders, President Trump was reportedly “very clear” that Washington aims to secure a ceasefire, while stressing that Ukraine’s territorial issues cannot be resolved without the involvement of President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Here’s an analysis of the territorial implications:

Reports suggest a proposed peace agreement could involve Ukraine conceding control over the eastern Donetsk region and Luhansk, collectively known as the Donbas, in exchange for a ceasefire. However, the worsening situation in Donetsk poses challenges, with Russian forces making significant gains to the northeast of Dobropilia, altering the control of the area under discussion during negotiations with the Kremlin.

Ukraine has downplayed these advances as infiltrations by small groups of Russian troops, but reinforcements have been sent nevertheless. Local sources paint a more alarming picture, suggesting months of persistent Russian pressure have resulted in a vulnerable point to exploit.

Forcing tens of thousands of civilians and troops to vacate the Donetsk region would be politically and practically challenging for President Zelensky. Evacuating such a large population within the timeframe of a potential peace deal, particularly during a Russian summer offensive where Moscow’s forces are advancing, seems impractical.

Moscow holds small border areas to the north – near Sumy and Kharkiv – but these territories are part of Ukraine, not Russia, making them unsuitable for “swap” negotiations.

Putin has always sought more than just Donetsk in any peace agreement, as demonstrated by Russia’s constitution, which falsely claims Ukraine as historically Russian by annexing four partially occupied regions of Ukraine. Moscow currently controls most of Donetsk and nearly all of Luhansk, but only about two-thirds of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia respectively.

Whether Putin would agree to relinquish the Ukrainian-held parts of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia remains uncertain. Conceding this territory would be unacceptable for Ukraine, requiring substantial tracts of land to be handed over to Moscow and potentially necessitating the evacuation or annexation of the bustling city of Zaporizhzhia. President Zelensky has warned that any territory ceded to Russia would serve as a launchpad for future invasions, as occurred with Crimea, illegally annexed by Moscow in 2014 and used as a base for the full-scale war in 2022.

The statements of Ukraine’s European allies suggest a shift towards accepting the current line of contact as a starting point for negotiations. While this is not exactly a concession, it does represent an important change in tone, signaling a potential softening of long-held positions against recognizing or accepting Russian control over occupied Ukrainian territories.

In reality, freezing the front lines would be beneficial for Ukraine at this juncture. Although advances near Dobropilia are inconclusive, across the front lines as a whole, Russia is converting months of incremental progress into more strategic gains. Putin appears to be buying time, both during the slow-paced diplomatic efforts in Istanbul and during the Alaska summit, where the White House has redefined the meeting from an immediate peace deal aimed at imposing tough sanctions to a softer “listening exercise.”

The best possible outcome for Ukraine would be President Trump asserting that a peace deal is unattainable within the first few minutes of the meeting and subsequently imposing secondary sanctions against Moscow’s major energy customers – India and China – as promised last week. However, given the enigmatic relationship between Trump and Putin, which often seems to override U.S. long-term security interests, the outcome of the Alaska summit is likely to be less favorable for Ukraine and represents a high-stakes gamble.