David Pratt: Are Trump and Putin about to stitch up Ukraine?

The National

4 days ago

The leader of that third-party nation then agrees to meet the leader of the aggressor nation to map out the terms of the ceasefire.
This is then duly presented to the invaded nation's leader to sign and ratify. At no point is the leader of the invaded country invited to the initial negotiations.
Does that sound like a fair deal to you? Would you imagine that any semblance of a sound and just peace would come of it?
READ MORE: 'Absolutely crazy': Scottish jazz artist scores new film by Hollywood director
Only the very naïve or those suffering from a bout of the most unrealistic optimism would think so. But that is precisely what US President Donald Trump appears to believe will be the outcome of his meeting with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, when the two men get together on Friday in Alaska to discuss an end to the conflict in Ukraine.
The fact that Trump – even before the meeting takes place – has already said that Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy would need to cede territory for a deal to be reached only added insult to injury in the eyes of many Ukrainians given that their leader was frozen out of the Alaska talks.
It perhaps came as no real surprise then that Zelenskyy unequivocally made it clear that Ukraine will not 'gift' land to Russia as part of a ceasefire deal.
'The answer to the Ukrainian territorial question already is in the Constitution of Ukraine,' Zelenskyy said in a social media post.
'No-one will deviate from this – and no-one will be able to. Ukrainians will not gift their land to the occupier,' he insisted.
Zelenskyy also went on to stress that Ukraine is 'ready to work together with President Trump'. But he said that decisions made without Ukraine are 'unworkable.'
The dramatic developments of the past few days coinciding as they did on Friday with Trump's deadline to Putin to stop the fighting or face tough new economic sanctions took many by surprise.
They came too just when Ukraine and its European allies thought that Trump was coming round to their view of the war.
Now, instead, say critics of the move, Trump has effectively handed Putin a diplomatic coup, while others also see dark historic parallels that subsequently went on to have profound implication for the world at the time in the past.
'It looks like Munich 1938, when great powers decide the fate of the victim of the aggression,' said Oleksandr Merezhko, chair of the foreign affairs committee of the Ukrainian parliament and an MP in Zelenskyy's ruling party.
When the idea of a summit was initially suggested, Trump said it would only go ahead if Putin agreed to meet with Zelenskyy, something Kyiv has long called for but been resisted by Moscow.
Then, last Thursday, with characteristic unpredictability, Trump announced that a Putin and Zelenskyy face-to-face was unnecessary, effectively sidelining the Ukrainian leader and making it a bilateral negotiation between Trump and Putin.
Almost immediately the alarm bells went off in Kyiv and in the corridors of power of its European allies.
'The danger for Ukraine is actually quite grave,' said Jonathan Eyal, international director at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), the London-based think tank. 'There will be a sense of alarm in European capitals,' he added in an interview with American broadcaster NBC.
'Trump will be so pleased by what he perceives as the great achievement of getting Putin to the negotiating table, that he grabs any kind of offer that is made,' Eyal said.
'The danger of half-baked compromise, which Trump can claim as his main achievement, is very high.'
READ MORE: Former Knesset speaker urges '1 million Jews' to file Israel war crimes complaint
Also speaking to NBC, Yuriy Boyechko, CEO of the charity Hope for Ukraine, warned that even if there is no truce agreement, 'a meeting with Trump – no matter the outcome – would be a big diplomatic victory for Putin.
'Putin wants to break his diplomatic isolation' and such a meeting 'will stroke his ego', said Boyechko, adding that the 'meeting with Putin is a trap; President Trump must not fall for it'.
But many observers are already predicting the scene when Trump, with Putin alongside, emerges from the Alaska negotiations and talks up their success.
It's a scenario, say some commentators, that also helps fulfil Trump's craving for international prestige and his near obsession lately of being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize he so evidently covets.
The obvious danger too, note analysts, is that Trump would effectively be helping Putin's gambit of piling domestic pressure on Zelenskyy and his government.
Many Ukrainians want the war to end but remain opposed to surrendering swathes of territory. Had Zelenskyy agreed to the ceding of territory, the risk involved was outlined by Merezhko, who told the Financial Times (FT) that it 'might cause a social explosion in Ukraine'.
In the event, however, Zelenskyy was wise to Putin's ploy and wasted no time in dispelling any notion of ceding territory.
Even as it stands, Putin's sweeping proposal would require that Ukraine hand over the eastern Ukrainian region of the Donbas, without Russia committing to anything more than to stop fighting.
The offer, which Putin conveyed on Wednesday to US special envoy Steve Witkoff in Moscow, said the Russian leader would agree to a complete ceasefire if Ukraine agreed to withdraw forces from all of Ukraine's eastern Donetsk region.
Russia would then control the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, as well as the Crimea Peninsula which it seized in 2014 and wants recognised as sovereign Russian territory.
Currently Russia controls almost all of Luhansk region and a substantial swathe of Donetsk region but has struggled to capture critical Ukrainian strongholds in the latter despite its summer offensive.
Reports also indicated that the southern Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions where Russian forces have been stuck on the south-eastern side of the Dnipro river would also be up for discussion, as would small areas of Kharkiv and Sumy regions that are controlled by the Russian military. Moscow could withdraw forces from those regions.
According to senior Ukrainian officials cited by the FT, Putin also demanded Nato membership for Ukraine be taken off the table, although EU membership would still be allowed. The officials also said Moscow insisted that Ukraine's military would be limited in size, and Russia would demand Western allies not provide Kyiv with long-range weapons.
Against this backdrop of sweeping proposals that will feature in the Alaska talks this week, the war on the ground, meanwhile, grinds on.
What began as a broad Russian push all along the 600-mile front in eastern and southern Ukraine now appears to be narrowing into three axes of attack – in the northeastern Sumy region and in the eastern Donetsk Oblast cities of Pokrovsk and Kostyantynivka, two important logistical hubs for Ukraine.
There is growing alarm over Pokrovsk and Kostyantynivka, which are at risk of being surrounded in the coming months. Russia has been struggling to take Pokrovsk for more than a year, but recently has managed to advance on the city's flanks. This means Russian forces are increasingly threatening Ukraine's supply lines, in part by intensively targeting them with drones.
Ukrainian soldiers say the Russian Army uses two main tactics to advance on the battlefield: pinning down Ukrainian troops with drones, shells and glide bombs before attacking enemy lines with relentless squad assaults on foot or by motorbike.
READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon 'felt like disappearing into North Sea after arrest', excerpt reveals
'In general, the basic tactics are relying even more on the manpower advantage and using those small infantry attacks in combination with heavy usage of firepower,' said Pasi Paroinen, an analyst at the Finland-based Black Bird Group that monitors conflict and intelligence analyses.
'They intensified their attacks pretty much almost all across the frontline around May and towards June,' Paroinen added, speaking to ABC News.
Some analysts maintain, though, that Russia is not only seeking to win new territory in Ukraine.
'Its goal is to destroy Ukraine's military potential, its army,' Valery Shiryaev, an independent Russian military analyst, said in a recent interview with Redaktsiya, an independent Russian news channel. 'If there is no army – the state would be defenceless.'
Away from the frontlines, Russia has been increasing the toll it inflicts on the Ukrainian population and economy at large by escalating attacks on the country with mass-produced exploding drones.
According to Ukraine's military intelligence service and cited by the Economist magazine, Russia has improved both the quantity and quality of its drones. Since last summer, it has raised monthly production of the Geran-2 drone, Russia's version of the Iranian Shahed kamikaze drone, five-fold.
Last month, on July 9, more than 700 drones – 60% of them carrying warheads and the rest cheap decoys – attacked Kyiv and other targets.
Until March this year, only about 3% to 5% of the Gerans were getting through. Last month, that rose to some 15% – a significantly higher number. The Economist also pointed to the increasing supplies of Chinese dual-use components that have helped Russia's increase in production.
Military analysts insist the most promising solution in tackling the rise in Geran and other drone attacks is cheap interceptor drones. According to data from The Economist, at least four Ukrainian firms, including Wild Hornets and Besomar, are producing different models. So are Tytan, a Germany company, and Frankenberg, an Estonian one. General Oleksandr Syrskyi, Ukraine's commander-in-chief, says that interceptor drones have a success rate of 70% against Gerans.
But as the ground and air war continues to gruesomely play out, all eyes this week will be on that meeting between Trump and Putin in Alaska. Should the talks turn against Trump's hopes and he has to get tough with Putin then the sanctions and tariffs leverage might come into play.
After imposing 50% tariffs on India for purchasing Russian oil, Trump could also resort to imposing additional sanctions on Russia's 'shadow fleet' of oil tankers. The term 'shadow fleet' refers to vessels whose ownership is hidden and which avoid using services from Western companies.
Russia has used a shadow fleet of largely ageing tankers to ship oil around the world in an attempt to evade western restrictions imposed in the wake of Moscow's 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The substantial petrodollars from these help fill Putin's war chest.
Most observers, however, believe it will not come to that and that the meeting will be far more convivial – much to the alarm of Kyiv and its European allies. Trump has long been a believer that the crux of foreign policy is two leaders in a room making historic deals, but without Zelenskyy at the table, it's not so much a long shot as nigh-on impossible, say analysts.
Even among Russia's pro-war Z-bloggers, there seems to be limited expectation from the planned meeting.
READ MORE: Pat Kane: We must get the ball rolling on how we deal with the microplastics crisis
The hawkish Telegram channel Military Informant described it as 'likely the last attempt to buy time'. While the post predicted the meeting would be 'epochal', it warned against expecting any 'major breakthrough' on the war in Ukraine.
'So far, Zelenskyy's strategy of going along with every US idea has won the sympathy of the American president for Ukraine, so the upcoming Putin-Trump meeting may be the last chance to shift the situation,' the channel wrote.
It's precisely such a shift, however, that both Ukraine and its European and other allies will be dreading.
While one White House official said that planning for the meeting remains fluid and Zelenskyy could still be involved in some way, few are holding their breath.
This Friday in Alaska could yet prove a significant moment indeed for both the outcome of the war and Ukraine's future.