
US-Russia Alaska summit: What Trump and Putin want – and why it matters
The talks, at Elmendorf Air Force Base, mark Putin's first visit to a Western country since he launched the invasion in February 2022, and his first trip to the United States in a decade.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy will not be present, a fact that underscores both the narrow scope of the meeting and the scepticism among Kyiv and its European allies that it will produce tangible results. Still, the symbolism and potential geopolitical consequences make the summit one of the most closely watched diplomatic encounters of the year.
Why this matters
The Alaska summit is significant for several reasons. For Washington, it is a test of Trump's ability to navigate high-stakes diplomacy with a counterpart known for exploiting divisions among adversaries. For Moscow, it offers a rare chance to break out of diplomatic isolation and demonstrate that the United States still sees Russia as an indispensable player in resolving Europe's largest conflict in decades.
The choice of location carries both practical and symbolic weight. Alaska is less than 100 km from Russia's easternmost point, allowing Putin to travel without crossing 'hostile' airspace. Russian state media have also seized on the venue's historical resonance – the territory was sold by Tsarist Russia to the United States in 1867 – to boost the Kremlin's argument that borders can change over time, a theme it uses to justify its actions in Ukraine.
For Europe, the meeting is a reminder that decisive moves in the war could be shaped in bilateral talks between Washington and Moscow, with EU leaders left on the sidelines. Any shift in US–Russia relations could alter the trajectory of the conflict and the region's security architecture for years to come.
What Russia wants
The Kremlin's stated objectives remain unchanged since its June draft peace proposal.
Moscow is seeking formal recognition of its control over four Ukrainian regions – Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson – that it claims to have annexed in 2022. It also wants Ukraine to abandon its bid for NATO membership, halt military mobilisation, and accept limits on its armed forces.
Another key demand is the lifting of Western sanctions, which have targeted Russia's energy exports, financial system and access to technology. While the Russian economy has adapted in part by redirecting trade to Asia, officials in Moscow privately acknowledge the pressure from falling oil and gas revenues and a growing budget deficit.
Putin is also using the summit as a stage to reassert Russia's relevance on the global stage. By meeting the US president on American soil – and without Ukraine or European leaders present – the Kremlin can present the encounter domestically as proof that it remains a power Washington must engage with directly.
What the United States wants
Trump has repeatedly said he wants 'a ceasefire very, very quickly,' casting himself as a potential peacemaker. The White House has described the Alaska talks as a 'listening session' aimed at gauging Putin's willingness to compromise. Trump has suggested that, if the meeting goes well, a second summit could follow with Zelenskyy included.
The president faces political pressure at home to deliver on his campaign promise to end the war, a pledge that has so far proved elusive. His approach has shifted over recent months – from hinting at possible 'land swaps' to warning of 'very severe consequences' if Russia continues its offensive. That inconsistency has unsettled US allies, who fear Washington could press Ukraine into concessions it is unwilling to make.
While Trump has ruled out supporting Ukraine's entry into NATO, he has also voiced frustration at Russia's targeting of civilian infrastructure. Balancing those positions – while avoiding the perception of granting Putin a diplomatic victory – will be a central challenge of the Alaska meeting.
What Ukraine wants
Zelenskyy has dismissed the Alaska summit as a 'personal victory' for Putin and insists that Ukraine must be directly involved in any peace process. Kyiv's conditions for talks are a full and unconditional ceasefire, the complete withdrawal of Russian forces, and binding international security guarantees to deter future attacks.
Ukraine is also demanding the return of prisoners of war and the repatriation of thousands of children it says were forcibly taken to Russia since 2022. Moscow denies abducting children but confirms that many are now in Russian territory, often under new guardianship arrangements.
Kyiv has made clear that sanctions on Russia should only be lifted gradually and with mechanisms to reinstate them if agreements are violated. Any deal that omits these elements, Ukrainian officials say, would be unacceptable.
European concerns
European leaders have been largely excluded from major peace discussions in recent months, including previous US-Russia contacts in Riyadh and talks between Russian and Ukrainian officials in Istanbul.
France, Germany, Britain, Italy, Poland and the European Commission issued a joint statement last week warning that any territorial decisions must be made by Ukraine itself.
French President Emmanuel Macron reiterated that position after speaking with Trump on Wednesday, while British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said he was encouraged that the US leader appeared focused on securing a ceasefire rather than pressing Ukraine into territorial concessions. Both have raised the possibility of deploying peacekeepers in Ukraine once fighting stops – an idea firmly rejected by Russia.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Al Etihad
an hour ago
- Al Etihad
Trump says 'nothing set in stone' on Putin meeting
15 Aug 2025 20:48 ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE (Reuters) US President Donald Trump on Friday said he did not know what would make his summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin a success, saying he wanted to see a what would make the meeting a success, he told reporters aboard Air Force One: "I can't tell you that. I don't know. There's nothing set in stone. I want certain things. I want a ceasefire." "I want to see a ceasefire rapidly... I'm not going to be happy if it's not today," he said, adding that Europe and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky would also be involved. "I want the killing to stop."


Zawya
2 hours ago
- Zawya
Trump's attack on Goldman could prompt watering down of Wall Street's independent analysis
U.S. President Donald Trump's criticism of Goldman Sachs' research on tariff risks could prompt some analysts to water down their research, investors and academics said, an outcome that could leave investors with less reliable information. The reams of research that banks such as Goldman produce are used by institutional investors, such as hedge funds and asset managers, in deciding how to allocate capital. Trump's comments -- in which he lambasted Goldman, its economics team and CEO David Solomon and accused them of making "a bad prediction" -- have triggered a debate on Wall Street about the possible fallout, according to interviews with banking industry sources and investors. At one Wall Street bank, Trump's comments spurred informal conversations among staff, a source familiar with the matter said. The source said they also discussed how to incorporate government data in the wake of Trump's decision to fire the head of BLS, claiming -- without evidence -- that its data had been politicized. Still, the bank was not considering changing the way research operates. "This is going to come down to a person's ability to withstand a barrage of criticism from the Oval Office, and the extent to which these banks provide support for their chief economists," said Dave Rosenberg of Rosenberg Research, who has worked in the economics departments at several banks. "If we notice that research is being watered down ... then we'll know that this has had an effect." Jack Ablin, chief investment strategist at Cresset Capital, said if banks do start self-censoring, smaller investors who do not have the resources to do their own analysis are likely to suffer most. Trump's criticism is his latest attack on corporate America and other institutions, and is a break from historical norms, where presidents have typically avoided calling out private companies and executives for things they do not like. Some companies that have considered passing on tariff costs to customers have faced public criticism, and Trump, who came to politics after running businesses, has intervened directly in private business decisions by making a deal with Nvidia to give a portion of its revenues from sales to China of AI chips to the government. Trump 'certainly is taking a number of steps that diverge from the traditional view of the respective roles of the government and private industry,' said Henry Hu, a securities law professor at the University of Texas. In a social media post earlier this week, Trump said foreign companies and governments were mostly absorbing the cost of his tariffs, counter to Goldman's research. "Given that sell-side Wall Street analyst predictions have been about as accurate as random guessing, small investors will do just fine with the president exercising his First Amendment right about flawed Wall Street research," a White House official told Reuters. On Wednesday, Goldman's U.S. head economist David Mericle defended its research on CNBC, vowing to "keep doing" what the bank considers informative research. Goldman declined requests for further comment. Other major banks, including Wells Fargo, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, Bank of America and Citigroup, declined to comment. REPUTATIONAL RISKS There has already been evidence of self-censorship. A senior JPMorgan Asset Management investment strategist, Michael Cembalest, earlier this year said during a webinar that he refrained from voicing some of his thoughts on U.S. tariffs publicly. Shortly after Cembalest's comments, Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan's CEO, said that he expects analysts to speak their minds. Both Cembalest and the bank declined to comment for this story. Hu said there is a risk involved in even appearing to give way to political pressure. 'Goldman's reputational capital is at stake here,' he said. 'If their views on the economy become biased, and they are shown to be wrong, why would anyone choose Goldman to advise them on anything?' Mike Mayo, banking analyst at Wells Fargo, said independent research is critical for investment bank's reputation. "Investment banks live and die by their reputation and independence. That transcends all other considerations." Wall Street research has long been tightly overseen, one source said, with supervisory analysts reviewing research reports to ensure that language is not inflammatory, emotive or partisan and that reports are objective and cite sources. That person said that if analysts feel unable to speak openly then investors will pay more or take greater risk. Liquidity will suffer and there will be less foreign participation in U.S. markets, the person said. It was large losses by smaller investors that triggered the first major probe of Wall Street research in the aftermath of the dot com stock bubble of the late 1990s. Eliot Spitzer, then New York Attorney General, found that Wall Street analysts had swapped their honest opinions for unwarranted "buy" ratings on companies to help their banks win underwriting and advisory business. The result: a $1.5 billion global settlement payout by Wall Street and lifetime bans for some analysts. It remains to be seen whether the current kerfuffle will have an outsized impact on Wall Street or if it is a storm in a teacup, said Steve Sosnick, market strategist at IBKR. "It does raise a lot of questions," he added.


Khaleej Times
2 hours ago
- Khaleej Times
Kremlin says Alaska talks to last over 6 hours, 3-way meeting on Ukraine 'possible' in future
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said ahead of the Alaska summit on Ukraine that a subsequent three-way meeting would be possible if talks between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump bear results, Russia's Interfax news agency reported on Friday. Peskov said that the talks between Russian and US Presidents may last 6-7 hours, and their aides will take part in meetings that were expected to be held one-to-one, Russian state media reported. "On the day of the negotiations, they also kill people. And that says a lot," Zelenskiy said on the Telegram messenger. "The war continues. It continues precisely because there is no order, nor any indication that Moscow is preparing to end this war," he added.