
Trump and Putin to meet in Alaska for high-stakes summit on Russia-Ukraine war
The sit-down offers Mr. Trump a chance to prove to the world that he is both a master dealmaker and a global peacemaker. He and his allies have cast him as a heavyweight negotiator who can find a way to bring the slaughter to a close — something he used to boast he could do quickly.
Also read | India endorses Trump-Putin summit in Alaska
For Mr. Putin, a summit with Mr. Trump offers a long-sought opportunity to try to negotiate a deal that would cement Russia's gains, block Kyiv's bid to join the NATO military alliance and eventually pull Ukraine back into Moscow's orbit.
There are significant risks for Mr. Trump. By bringing Mr. Putin onto U.S. soil, the President is giving Russia's leader the validation he desires after his ostracization following his invasion of Ukraine 3 1/2 years ago. The exclusion of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy from the summit also deals a heavy blow to the West's policy of 'nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine' and invites the possibility that Mr. Trump could agree to a deal that Ukraine does not want.
Any success is far from assured, especially as Russia and Ukraine remain far apart in their demands for peace. Mr. Putin has long resisted any temporary ceasefire, linking it to a halt in Western arms supplies and a freeze on Ukraine's mobilization efforts — conditions rejected by Kyiv and its Western allies.
Mr. Trump said that even more important than his summit with Mr. Putin would be a subsequent meeting that also includes Mr. Zelenskyy, something he suggested could even happen before he departs Alaska — a possibility that Russia hasn't agreed to.
Mr. Trump said in a Fox News radio interview Thursday that he didn't know if they would get 'an immediate ceasefire' but he wanted a broad peace deal done quickly. That seemingly echoes Mr. Putin's longtime argument that Russia favors a comprehensive deal to end the fighting, reflecting its demands, not a temporary halt to hostilities.
The Kremlin said Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin will first sit down for a one-on-one discussion, followed by the two delegations meeting and talks continuing over 'a working breakfast.' They are then expected to hold a joint press conference.
In the days leading up to the summit, set for a military base near Anchorage, Mr. Trump described it as ' really a feel-out meeting.' But he's also warned of 'very severe consequences' for Russia if Mr. Putin doesn't agree to end the war and said that though Mr. Putin might bully other leaders, 'He's not going to mess around with me.'
Mr. Trump's repeated suggestions that a deal would likely involve 'some swapping of territories' — which disappointed Ukraine and European allies — along with his controversial history with Putin have some skeptical about what kind of agreement can be reached.
Ian Kelly, a retired career foreign service officer who served as the U.S. ambassador to Georgia during the Obama and first Trump administrations, said he sees 'no upside for the U.S., only an upside for Mr. Putin.'
'The best that can happen is nothing, and the worst that can happen is that Putin entices Trump into putting more pressure on Zelenskyy,' Mr. Kelly said.
George Beebe, the former director of the CIA's Russia analysis team who is now affiliated with the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, said there's a serious risk of blown expectations or misunderstandings for a high-level summit pulled together so quickly.
'That said, I doubt President Trump would be going into a meeting like this unless there had been enough work done behind the scenes for him to feel that there is a decent chance that something concrete will come out of it,' Mr. Beebe said.
Mr. Zelenskyy has time and again cast doubts on Mr. Putin's willingness to negotiate in good faith. His European allies, who've held increasingly urgent meetings with U.S. leaders over the past week, have stressed the need for Ukraine to be involved in any peace talks.
Political commentators in Moscow, meanwhile, have relished that the summit leaves Ukraine and its European allies on the sidelines.
Dmitry Suslov, a pro-Kremlin voice, expressed hope that the summit will 'deepen a trans-Atlantic rift and weaken Europe's position as the toughest enemy of Russia.'
European leaders who consulted with Trump this week said the president assured them he would prioritize trying to achieve a ceasefire.
Foreign governments will be watching closely to see how Mr. Trump reacts to Mr. Putin, likely gauging what the interaction might mean for their own dealings with the U.S. president, who has eschewed traditional diplomacy for his own transactional approach to relationships.
The meeting comes as the war has caused heavy losses on both sides and drained resources.
Ukraine has held on far longer than some initially expected since the February 2022 invasion, but it is straining to hold off Russia's much larger army, grappling with bombardments of its cities and fighting for every inch on the over 600-mile (1,000-kilometer) front line.
Andrea Kendall-Taylor, a senior fellow and director of the Transatlantic Security Program at the Center for a New American Security, said U.S. antagonists like China, Iran and North Korea will be paying attention to Trump's posture to see 'whether or not the threats that he continues to make against Putin are indeed credible.'
'Or, if has been the past track record, he continues to back down and look for ways to wiggle out of the kind of threats and pressure he has promised to apply,' said Kendall-Taylor, who is also a former senior intelligence officer.
While some have objected to the location of the summit, Trump has said he thought it was 'very respectful' of Putin to come to the U.S. instead of a meeting in Russia.
Sergei Markov, a pro-Kremlin Moscow-based analyst, observed that the choice of Alaska as the summit's venue 'underlined the distancing from Europe and Ukraine.'
Being on a military base allows the leaders to avoid protests and meet more securely, but the location carries its own significance because of its history and location.
Alaska, which the U.S. purchased from Russia in 1867, is separated from Russia at its closest point by just 3 miles (less than 5 kilometers) and the international date line.
Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson was crucial to countering the Soviet Union during the Cold War. It continues to play a role today, as planes from the base still intercept Russian aircraft that regularly fly into U.S. airspace.

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

Mint
12 minutes ago
- Mint
Why Alaska? 5 reasons this remote state was picked for the high-stakes Trump-Putin summit
US President Donald Trump will meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin at a military base in Anchorage, Alaska on Friday for a high-stakes summit. The meeting could determine not only the trajectory Russia- Ukraine war but also the fate of European security, news agency AP said. The sit-down offers President Trump a chance to prove to the world that he is both a master dealmaker and a global peacemaker, the news agency said. It said that for Putin, a summit with Trump offers a long-sought opportunity to negotiate a deal that would cement Russia's gains, block Kyiv's bid to join the NATO military alliance, and eventually pull Ukraine back into Moscow's orbit. The venue for the high-profile meeting is Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, a US military installation on the northern edge of Alaska's most populous city- Anchorage Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson is Alaska's largest military base. The 64,000-acre outfit is a key US site for Arctic military drills and readiness. But why Alaska for Trump-Putin meeting? Here are the key reasons for the choice of the location of the high-stakes meeting between the two glogal leaders: The 'Frontier State', Alaska, is geographically the closest point between the US and Russia, divided by the Bering Strait and resting just 55 miles away from the European country. Alaska, which was a Russian colony for more than 65 years. Also, Alaska has been the site of both cooperation and conflict between the two nations beginning, in part, with the purchase of the 49th state from the Russian empire. 'The symbolism of Alaska would be a reminder of how it was possible for the United States and Russia for most of the 19th century to transcend their ideological and political differences and their expansionisms, to have warm, friendly cooperative relations,' David S Foglesong, a history professor at Rutgers University - New Brunswick, told Time Magazine. Vladimir Putin is barred from entering the 125 countries that are parties to the Rome Statute due to an International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant issued against him for war crimes. The US, however, doesn't recognise ICC jurisdiction, which means a summit in Alaska provides legal shield to Putin. 'No other country wants them to have this meeting on their territory,' Lee Farrow, professor and chair of Auburn University at Montgomery's history and world culture department was quoted as saying in Time Magazine. 'It will be easier to manage strategically from a safety standpoint, and Putin doesn't have to be worried about getting arrested by some kind of international court,' says Farrow who is the author of Seward's Folly: A New Look at the Alaska Purchase. Alaska also played a significant role during the World Wars, delivering thousands of aircrafts to the then-Soviet Union in World War II on ferries that traveled through the Bering Strait. The summit at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson will provide exceptional security and privacy. The base has Cold War roots and remains critical to US Northern defence infrastructure. Symbolically, Alaska later became the 'first line of defence' at the end of the Cold War, Brandon Boylan, a professor of political science and director of Arctic and northern studies at the University of Alaska Fairbanks told Time Magazine. Alaska and Russia share overlapping interests in the Arctic Circle. Both nations participate in the Arctic Council—though some of their work has been temporarily paused due to Russia's invasion—and maintain a history of scientific collaboration, according to reports. Alaska's proximity to Russia also gives it strategic significance for Arctic energy resources, shipping routes, and climate research, factors that could shape the Trump-Putin talks around access to critical minerals and energy supplies—resources that Ukraine's conflict has made increasingly pivotal for global markets. Political tensions between Russia and the US have worsened in recent decades. But relations were historically much friendlier, even before the purchase of Alaska, which was a Russian colony for more than 65 years. Alaska is non-contiguous US state in the far northwest of North America. It is part of the United States but not connected to the rest of the country. Alaska is the largest US state by area and considered to be the northernmost, westernmost, and easternmost state in the United States. The symbolism of Alaska would be a reminder of how it was possible for the United States and Russia for most of the 19th century to transcend their ideological and political differences. Alaska is one of the two non-contiguous US states, alongside Hawaii.


Time of India
23 minutes ago
- Time of India
'Go back to where you came from': Staten Island crowd boos Zohran Mamdani- See video
Not everyone welcomed New York City's Democratic mayoral nominee, Zohran Mamdani , to Staten Island on Wednesday afternoon, as he faced protests outside the Istanbul Bay Authentic Mediterranean Restaurant. A protester wearing a "Trump girl" T-shirt and holding an American flag shouted at the 33-year-old self-described socialist as he exited the restaurant's back door, Fox news reported. "Go back to where you came from. We don't want you on Staten Island," the individual declared. During Mamdani's third anti-Trump event of the week, protesters outside the restaurant drowned out the introductory speeches with cowbells, sirens, and megaphones. Despite the heat in the crowded restaurant and the opposition outside, Mamdani maintained a smile throughout the event and told reporters, "It saddens me to hear language of being told to go back to where I came from, and yet, it is not surprising because it is so much of what characterises US President Donald Trump's politics." Mamdani was hosting his third "Five Boroughs Against Trump" event of the week on Wednesday, reaffirming his commitment to protecting New Yorkers from President Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration if elected mayor of New York City this November. Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Watching Her Walk the Aisle? Explore Classic Dress Styles TheDaddest Undo by Taboola by Taboola "I will not let it dissuade me from continuing to come to Staten Island, from continuing to speak to New Yorkers, no matter where they live, no matter what politics they have," Mamdani said in response to the protesters. "Because I know that just as there are Republicans who feel that way, there are others who are sincere in their questions." Several protesters outside the restaurant told Fox News Digital that they planned to vote for Curtis Sliwa, CEO of the Guardian Angels, this November. "He's the only one that could save our city," Ed, a Staten Islander carrying a large American flag, said. Ed told Fox News Digital that he wanted to give Mamdani "a little surprise party" and let the socialist candidate know that his values do not represent those of Staten Island. "This is Trump country," said Manny, another protester and Wall Street retiree who said Mamdani's policies are "anti-Wall Street." President Trump won Staten Island by 30 points in the 2024 presidential election, according to The New York Times' data. Meanwhile, in neighbouring Brooklyn, former Vice President Kamala Harris carried the borough by 44 points. Tommy Banks, a native Staten Islander, said his message to Mamdani on Wednesday was simple: "Get out of town." "He wants to make everything free. He can't afford that. He's a socialist. He don't live that. We're not socialist," Banks said. Banks agreed with the other protesters outside the restaurant, telling Fox News Digital that "nobody else" could be mayor but Sliwa. "He's a true New Yorker. He's been fighting for New York all his life. Give him a chance to get in there," Banks added. Another protester, Liz, shouted, "Mamdani's a commie!" as the Democratic nominee departed in his SUV. Liz said she doesn't like Mamdani because "he's not a Democrat, he's a communist." She stated that Mamdani is trying to tempt New Yorkers with campaign promises like free childcare, free bus fare, and government-run grocery stores, but Liz warned it would be a "disaster" if he became mayor. When Mamdani declared victory in the Democratic primary, incumbent mayor Eric Adams, who is running as an independent, called Mamdani a "snake-oil salesman" who would "say and do anything to get elected." President Trump has often criticised Mamdani and his policies, calling him a "100% communist lunatic." Staten Islanders who spoke to Fox News Digital outside Mamdani's anti-Trump event on Wednesday largely echoed these sentiments, calling him a "commie" and criticising his socialist policies, which include freezing the rent, raising corporate taxes, and increasing the minimum wage. However, Shahana Masum, who sported a "Zohran for Staten Island" sticker on her purse and attended the event, told Fox News Digital that Mamdani is the person who is representing "me and my community." Masum said she has also been told to go back to her country. To that, she responded, "You didn't go back to your country, and I came here with dignity and with my visa, so don't tell me to leave."


The Print
27 minutes ago
- The Print
India talked big on Russia-Ukraine mediation. Alaska meet offers a window
On Friday, Trump is set to meet Putin at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, Alaska. This is no random coffee shop—during the Cold War, it was the 'top cover for North America', guarding against Soviet bombers. Today, it still houses F-22 Raptors, the stealthiest fighters in the world, that routinely intercept Russian jets sniffing around US airspace. At first glance, these two threads—Trump's meeting with Putin in Alaska and India's hopes—feel out of sync. But the riddle begins to unravel if you follow the breadcrumb trail of strategic ego, economic carrots, political grudges, and converging interests. Donald Trump is at it again. The man who claimed he could end the Ukraine war 'in 24 hours' is about to once again try his hand at what has become the bloodiest conflict in Europe since WW2. Curiously, India is watching this with cautious optimism, and Prime Minister Modi has even spoken with President Zelenskyy on the phone. In anticipation of the Alaska meeting, European leaders are scrambling to have a phone call with Trump, cautioning him of all the things that could go wrong with hurried decisions. The amount of international speculation the meeting has garnered is understandable. This is Trump and Putin's first in-person encounter since Osaka 2019, and Trump's first as the re-elected US president. The announcement was dropped—in classic Trump style—just before the 8 August deadline for putting fresh sanctions on Russia for failing to stop the war. Instead of pulling the sanctions trigger, Trump decided to invite Putin for a chat in the Arctic. India's déjà vu If you're in New Delhi, you've seen this movie before—and it wasn't exactly a box office hit. Smug with Trump's cosying up to Putin in the early weeks of taking office, India was ill-prepared for the US president's re-pivot to Europe. Trump's latest swings on Russia policy have had collateral damage for India. Punitive tariffs have been slapped on Indian goods, a hard-negotiated trade deal stands iced, and a 25-year strategic partnership has been suddenly made to look inconsequential. The not-so-secret spoiler here is also the Modi government's misreading of Donald Trump on events after Operation Sindoor. The cold shoulder toward Modi and punitive tariffs aren't solely about India buying Russian oil. These US actions are more about Modi refusing to publicly acknowledge Trump for facilitating the 'ceasefire' between India and Pakistan—something Trump has bragged about dozens of times while India has repeatedly and unnecessarily denied. The US' sudden reduction of a self-assured India to a strategic expendable has gone down bitterly in New Delhi. This time, though, it is keeping its powder dry. Any US-Russia dialogue is welcome and conducive to Indian interests, but the memory, impact, and shock of recent disappointments linger. That said, pragmatism calls for keeping our cards open. The calculation is simple—if Trump warms up to Putin, India might get short-term relief (having the punitive tariffs lifted) and long-term diplomatic flexibility—engaging both Russia and the West without alienating either. The catch? India has talked a big game about playing peacemaker and mediator, but hasn't shown much appetite or capacity for actual, even limited, mediation. It has facilitated no prisoner swaps, no ceasefire preparatory talks—nothing on the level of what the Emiratis, Saudis, or Turks have done. The truth is, India's leverage in ending the war is rather limited. More disappointingly, it has not even lived up to its widely respected 'humanitarian actor' reputation in the war. Part of the problem is that India hasn't capitalised on its 2023 'moment'—hosting the G-20 and basking in global attention. Instead of pushing hard for investment, reforming defence procurement, and capitalising on 'China + 1' diversification, India got distracted. Now, with Trump and Putin set to meet again, India is reclaiming its mediator role. However, a little scrutiny will tell us that nothing decisive can be expected from Alaska. Also read: Trump is swinging on Russia again. What this means for Europe's security architecture Roadblocks in Alaska Even with Trump's flair for theatrics, three big roadblocks remain: 1. Land swap paradox: Trump's team has repeatedly mentioned land swap—the question is, how? Ukraine doesn't hold Russian territory; Russia only partially holds some annexed Ukrainian regions. Putin wants all four annexed territories without more fighting, and Ukraine refuses to gift land that it is still defending. Does Trump mean to ask Russia to give its own land to Ukraine? Or does he mean to ask Russia to give back some of the land taken from Ukraine? Either seems a rather outlandish proposition. The strategy, therefore, has a fundamental paradox to resolve. 2. Battlefield dynamics: The war in Ukraine began in 2014 with Russia's annexation of Crimea and the gaining of de facto control over the Donbass region. In 2022, Moscow escalated to a full-scale invasion, seeking to seize more territory and formally declaring four Ukrainian regions—Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson—as part of Russia. Of these, Donetsk and Luhansk were part of the earlier occupied Donbass, while Zaporozhzhia and Kherson were new claims. However, after 11 years of grinding conflict, Russia fully controls only Luhansk. Roughly a quarter each of Donetsk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia remains under Ukrainian control, with fierce fighting ongoing. Despite expectations of major breakthroughs, battlefield dynamics have stayed relatively static, and Russia's summer offensive has underperformed. Notably, following Trump's announcement of planned talks with Putin in Alaska, Russian forces have intensified operations, attempting to seize as many villages as possible before potential negotiations. Yet Russian gains average at about 20 per cent of Ukrainian territory. Putin's strategy hinges on presenting a simplified battlefield dynamic to Trump, which will not hold in reality. 3. Diffused power differential: Who holds the cards to end the Ukraine war? Trump may hold immense power, but the US cannot singlehandedly end the conflict. Russia, for all its reputed military might, has failed to secure victory on the battlefield, while Ukraine—despite its resilience and courage—remains unable to reclaim its lost territories through force alone. However, in its fourth year of war, Ukraine boasts one of the world's most advanced drone warfare capabilities despite war fatigue and apparent fissures in Zelesnkyy's popularity. Then there is Europe. Unable to play a decisive role initially, Europe's unprecedented transformation to ramp up its defence spending despite fragile solidarity and resilience to stay united behind Ukraine has been surprising. While the UK and France have maintained consistent strategic positions, Germany's rearmament and Poland's resurgence have been pivotal. As Trump took office, Poland, as EU Council chair, championed security and defence as core priorities—driving a difficult but essential enabler toward military modernisation. Chancellor Merz's constitutional changes, boosting Germany's defence spending, complemented Poland's leadership in steering structural reforms for a good six months within a traditionally geo-economic EU. They reshaped Europe's strategic focus toward security preparedness, and in the process, accorded the EU undeniable agency as a bloc. Today, it is Europe that provides more support to Ukraine, not the US. Even the American weapons for Ukraine are purchased by Europe. Therefore, Europe and Ukraine's agencies are crucial. There is credible evidence to show that if the Alaska talks are steered bilaterally between the US and Russia, the diffused power differential among key stakeholders will foil the outcomes before they even start taking effect. Also read: Asim Munir wants to be guardian of the Middle East. He's fated to fail at home The Trump carrot Promising to give Ukraine some due, Trump is dangling eye-popping offers to Russia. The list includes mineral access in Russian-occupied Ukraine, lifting sanctions on the aviation sector, and even letting Russia develop Arctic resources in the Bering Strait—an area holding an estimated 13 per cent of the world's oil. For a man who once almost convinced the world about taking Greenland militarily, this is counterintuitive. The US has carefully guarded its Arctic dominance for decades; handing any of that to Moscow would be a seismic policy shift—that is, if Trump means it. If, against all odds, Alaska produces even a partial step toward peace, India could quietly position itself yet again for a role in Ukraine's reconstruction—bridging American, European, Russian, and Ukrainian interests. Is it a risk-averse approach? Yes. Is it aspirational? Also yes. Where Trump is involved, anything is possible—from a headline-grabbing 'deal' announced beamingly on Truth Social to a total flop, with fighting resuming. The most probable scenario, however, would be a ceasefire immediately and then steps toward discussing the quid pro quo on territories and guarantees. India should keep hedging to avoid the fate of being collateral damage in someone else's great-power drama. But as Alaska looms, one thing is clear: the real battlefield is as much about leverage, resilience, and perception as it is about territory and capabilities. On that front, the safest strategy for India is to translate its potential into leverage. And that is no easy feat. Swasti Rao is a Consulting Editor (International and Strategic Affairs) at ThePrint. She tweets @swasrao. Views are personal. (Edited by Prasanna Bachchhav)