
Mapping key regions in Ukraine as Trump and Putin prepare for Alaska summit
Last Friday, Trump suggested a ceasefire deal could involve 'some swapping of territories,' but it is not yet clear what areas he was referring to, and Ukraine has categorically rejected ceding parts of its land. Russia, too, has rejected the idea.
On Wednesday, French President Emmanuel Macron said that Trump was 'very clear' on a call with European leaders that Washington wants to obtain a ceasefire and that Ukraine's territorial issues cannot be negotiated without its president, Volodymyr Zelensky.
Here's what maps tell us about what's at stake.
One proposal, elements of which have emerged over the past week, reportedly presented to US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff in Moscow, would have Ukraine give up the remainder of the eastern Donetsk region and Luhansk, together known as the Donbas, in exchange for a ceasefire.
But this week, the situation in Donetsk has rapidly deteriorated, with Russian forces making important advances to the north east of Dobropilia, altering control of the area Witkoff has been discussing with the Kremlin. Kyiv has downplayed the advances as infiltration by small groups of Russian forces, but sent reinforcements. Other Ukrainian sources in the area paint a more dire picture, in which months of persistent Russian pressure has culminated in a weak spot to exploit.
It would be politically toxic for Ukraine's Zelensky to order tens of thousands of civilians and troops to voluntarily leave Donetsk region. Many could refuse. The practical elements of it would be impossible – evacuating tens of thousands of civilians in days or weeks, to fit the timetable of a peace deal hatched during a Russian summer offensive where Moscow's forces are gaining ground.
There are few obvious options for Moscow to concede back. They hold slivers of border land to the north – near Sumy and Kharkiv – both of which are called 'buffer zones' by the Kremlin head, and are the result of less-than-successful incursions designed to drain Ukraine's manpower. But they are tiny and, as Ukrainian officials point out, also part of Ukraine, not Russia. So they are not an obvious or equal 'swap.'
Some of the confusion around Witkoff's Kremlin meeting was whether Putin had stepped back from his maximalist war goals, and had conceded a potential ceasefire purely in exchange for Donetsk. Putin has always wanted way more, and indeed Russia's constitution has perpetuated the false narrative that Ukraine is historically Russia, by adding all four partially occupied regions of Ukraine to its territory.
Moscow holds most of Donetsk and nearly all of Luhansk. But it only controls about two-thirds of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia respectively, the former liberated in part from Russian forces in late 2022.
Would Putin agree to leave the Ukrainian-held parts of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia under Kyiv's control? That remains unclear. But Ukraine ceding this territory would be another non-starter, requiring vast tracts of land to be handed over to Moscow and indeed the entire bustling city of Zaporizhzhia to evacuate or become Russian. Zelensky has also warned that territory conceded to Russia would simply be used as a springboard for further invasions, as happened with Crimea, illegally annexed by Moscow in 2014, and used as a launchpad for the full-scale war in 2022.
The statements of Ukraine's European allies have suggested the current line of contact be the starting point for negotiations. That is not quite a concession, but an important change in tone. For years, Europe and Kyiv – along with the Biden administration – have declared they will never recognise or accept Russian control over occupied parts of Ukraine. But since the return of Trump to the White House, they have softened their position, quietly entertaining the idea that the front lines might be frozen.
In truth, that would be a good outcome for Kyiv now. While Russian advances near Dobropilia in the past days are inconclusive, across the front lines as a whole they are turning months of incremental progress into more strategic gains. Putin is clearly playing for time, both over the past months of slow-rolled diplomacy in Istanbul, and in Alaska, where the White House has reframed a summit aimed at an immediate peace deal to avoid hard-hitting sanctions into a softer 'listening exercise.'
For Kyiv, the best outcome would be Trump asserting, as he has hinted he could, that 'in the first two minutes' of the meeting it's clear there is no deal to be had, and then imposing the secondary sanctions against Moscow's big energy customers – India and China – that he promised to implement last Friday.
But Trump and Putin's relationship is founded on an opaque connection that seems to often override the United States' longer-term security interest, and so the outcome of their meeting in Alaska is likely to be less in Ukraine's favor, and certainly a high-stakes dice roll.
CNN's Nick Paton Walsh reported from Kyiv, with graphics from Rachel Wilson and Lou Robinson in London.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The president's ex-adviser said the 79-year-old looked downright exhausted during his meeting with the Russian leader.
President Donald Trump's former national security adviser thought he looked 'tired' at his Alaska summit, which did him no favors standing opposite Russian President Vladimir Putin. John Bolton said on CNN that Putin 'clearly won' the high-profile encounter on Friday given that he escaped without agreeing to a ceasefire with Ukraine and without additional sanctions on Russia. 'Trump didn't come away with anything except more meetings,' Bolton said. 'Putin has, I think, gone a long way to reestablishing the relationship, which I've always believed was his key goal. He has escaped sanctions. He's not facing a ceasefire. The next meeting is not set.'


Los Angeles Times
7 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
It's time to save the whales again
Diving in a kelp forest in Monterey Bay recently, I watched a tubby 200-pound harbor seal follow a fellow diver, nibbling on his flippers. The diver, a graduate student, was using sponges to collect DNA samples from the ocean floor. Curious seals, he told me, can be a nuisance. When he bags his sponges and places them in his collection net, they sometimes bite into them, puncturing the bags and spoiling his samples. Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, coming closer than 50 yards to seals and dolphins is considered harassment, but they're free to harass you, which seems only fair given the centuries of deadly whaling and seal hunting that preceded a generational shift in how we view the world around us. The shift took hold in 1969, the year a massive oil spill coated the Santa Barbara coastline and the Cuyahoga River, in Cleveland, caught fire. Those two events helped spark the first Earth Day, in 1970, and the shutdown of America's last whaling station in 1971. Protecting the environment from pollution and from loss of wilderness and wildlife quickly moved from a protest issue to a societal ethic as America's keystone environmental legislation was passed at around the same time, written by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by a Republican president, Richard Nixon. Those laws include the National Environmental Policy Act (1969) , the Clean Air Act (1970), the Clean Water Act (1972) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (1972), which goes further than the Endangered Species Act (1973) in protecting all marine mammals, not just threatened ones, from harassment, killing or capture by U.S. citizens in U.S. waters and on the high seas. All these 'green' laws and more are under attack by the Trump administration, its congressional minions and longtime corporate opponents of environmental protections, including the oil and gas industry. Republicans' disingenuous argument for weakening the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act is that the legislation has worked so well in rebuilding wildlife populations that it's time to loosen regulations for a better balance between nature and human enterprise. When it comes to marine mammal populations, that premise is wrong. On July 22, at a House Natural Resources subcommittee meeting, Republican Rep. Nick Begich of Alaska introduced draft legislation that would scale back the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Among other things, his proposal would limit the ability of the federal government to take action against 'incidental take,' the killing of whales, dolphins and seals by sonic blasts from oil exploration, ship and boat strikes or by drowning as accidental catch (also known as bycatch) in fishing gear. Begich complained that marine mammal protections interfere with 'essential projects like energy development, port construction, and even fishery operations.' Rep. Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael), the ranking member on the House Resources Committee, calls the legislation a 'death sentence' for marine mammals. It's true that the marine mammal law has been a success in many ways. Since its passage, no marine mammal has gone extinct and some species have recovered dramatically. The number of northern elephant seals migrating to California beaches to mate and molt grew from 10,000 in 1972 to about 125,000 today. There were an estimated 11,000 gray whales off the West Coast when the Marine Mammal Protection Act became law; by 2016, the population peaked at 27,000. But not all species have thrived. Historically there were about 20,000 North Atlantic right whales off the Eastern Seaboard. They got their name because they were the 'right' whales to harpoon — their bodies floated for easy recovery after they were killed. In 1972 they were down to an estimated 350 individuals. After more than half a century of federal legal protection, the population is estimated at 370. They continue to suffer high mortality rates from ship strikes, entanglement in fishing gear and other causes, including noise pollution and greater difficulty finding prey in warming seas. Off Florida, a combination of boat strikes and algal pollution threaten some 8,000-10,000 manatees. The population's recovery (from about 1,000 in 1979) has been significant enough to move them off the endangered species list in 2017, but since the beginning of this year alone, nearly 500 have died. Scientists would like to see them relisted, but at least they're still covered by the Marine Mammal Protection Act. A 2022 study in the Gulf of Mexico found that in areas affected by the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill 12 years earlier, the dolphin population had declined 45% and that it might take 35 years to recover. In the Arctic Ocean off Alaska, loss of sea ice is threatening polar bears (they're considered marine mammals), bowhead and beluga whales, walruses, ringed seals and harp seals. On the West Coast the number of gray whales — a Marine Mammal Act success story and now a cautionary tale — has crashed by more than half in the last decade to fewer than 13,000, according to a recent report by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA, the nation's lead ocean agency, is an endangered species in its own right in the Trump era). Declining prey, including tiny shrimp-like amphipods, in the whales' summer feeding grounds in the Arctic probably caused by warming water are thought to be a major contributor to their starvation deaths and reduced birth rates. The whale's diving numbers are just one signal that climate change alone makes maintaining the Marine Mammal Act urgent. Widespread marine heat waves linked to a warming ocean are contributing to the loss of kelp forests that sea otters and other marine mammals depend on. Algal blooms off California, and for the first time ever, Alaska, supercharged by warmer waters and nutrient pollution, are leading to the deaths of thousands of dolphins and sea lions. What the Trump administration and its antiregulation, anti-environmental-protection supporters fail to recognize is that the loss of marine mammals is an indicator for the declining health of our oceans and the natural world we depend on and are a part of. This time, saving the whales will be about saving ourselves. David Helvarg is executive director of Blue Frontier, an ocean policy group. His next book, 'Forest of the Sea: The Remarkable Life and Imperiled Future of Kelp,' is scheduled to be published in 2026.


Fox News
16 minutes ago
- Fox News
European 'coalition of the willing' forms united front as Trump pushes Putin-Zelenskyy summit
European leaders in a "coalition of the willing" are rushing to show unity before Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy arrives in Washington Monday. The push comes after Axios first reported that Russian President Vladimir Putin demanded Ukraine withdraw from two eastern regions during his Friday summit with President Donald Trump in Alaska. Trump is now pressing for a three-way summit with Putin and Zelenskyy "fast," possibly as early as Aug. 22. French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz will meet virtually Sunday. SUMMIT WITH PUTIN SET TO TOP TRUMP'S AGENDA THIS WEEK AS UKRAINE WAR TAKES CENTER STAGE The "coalition of the willing" aims to form a singular front before Zelenskyy faces Trump. In their Aug. 13 joint statement, Macron, Starmer and Merz said the coalition would "reject territorial concessions under force" and push for binding security guarantees for Ukraine. Axios reported Putin's terms would shift far more land to Russia than Ukraine would gain. He also floated China as a possible guarantor, a move that would push NATO aside. European nations see that as a direct challenge to their security system. President Trump said European leaders are looking to him to drive results. "There are a lot of European leaders, but they rely on me — very much rely on me. If it wasn't for me, this thing would never get solved until the last person breathing is dead," Trump said at a press briefing last THANKS NATO, EUROPEAN LEADERS FOR BACKING HIS PUSH TO JOIN TRUMP‑PUTIN SUMMIT The White House did not immediately return Fox News Digital's request for comment. For Zelenskyy, the stakes are high. He'll arrive in Washington on Monday as President Trump takes the lead in pushing for a settlement. European leaders believe their coalition can give Zelenskyy added support as he enters the talks. The Ukrainian Embassy in Washington, D.C., did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment. Trump has told Zelenskyy and other leaders he wants to move quickly toward a three-way meeting with Putin as early as Aug. 22, according to reporting from Axios. The goal, he has said, is to get all sides in the same room and test whether a breakthrough is possible. Such a summit would mark the first direct encounter between the three men since the war began. The phrase "coalition of the willing" once described the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Today, Europe is using it to block any peace deal that redraws Ukraine's borders by force. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APPSunday's meeting, Zelenskyy's White House talks Monday and Trump's push for a three-way summit will show whether Europe's coalition has real influence or if Washington and Moscow set terms offices of President Macron, Prime Minister Starmer and Chancellor Merz did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment.