GOV/MIL Trump and Putin to meet in Alaska Friday, August 15, 2025
- Thread starter Mzkitty
- Start date
von Koehler
Has No Life - Lives on TB
Putin wants Alaska returned to Russia.
Plain Jane
Just Plain Jane
Trump says he will meet Putin next Friday in Alaska to discuss ending the Ukraine war
President Donald Trump says he will meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin next Friday in Alaska to discuss ending the war in Ukraine.
apnews.com
Trump says he will meet Putin next Friday in Alaska to discuss ending the Ukraine war
WILL WEISSERT and VASILISA STEPANENKO
Updated 8:03 PM EDT, August 8, 2025
Share
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump said he will meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin next Friday in Alaska to discuss ending the war in Ukraine, a potential breakthrough after weeks of expressing frustration that more was not being done to quell the fighting.The Kremlin has not yet confirmed the details, which Trump announced on social media, but both nations had said they expected a meeting could happen as soon as next week.
Such a summit may prove pivotal in a war that began more than three years ago when Russia invaded its western neighbor and has led to tens of thousands of deaths — although there’s no guarantee it will stop the fighting since Moscow and Kyiv remain far apart on their conditions for peace.
In comments to reporters at the White House before his post confirming the date and place, Trump suggested that any agreement would likely involve “some swapping of territories,” but he gave no details. Analysts, including some close to the Kremlin, have suggested that Russia could offer to give up territory it controls outside of the four regions it claims to have annexed.
Trump said his meeting with Putin would come before any sit-down discussion involving Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Trump also previously agreed to meet with Putin even if the Russian leader would not meet with Zelenskyy. That stoked fears in Europe that Ukraine could be sidelined in efforts to stop the continent’s biggest conflict since World War II.
Trump’s announcement that he planned to host one of America’s adversaries on U.S. soil broke with expectations that they’d meet in a third country. The gesture gives Putin validation after the U.S. and its allies had long sought to make him a pariah over his war against Ukraine.
Early in Putin’s tenure, he regularly met with his U.S. counterparts. That dropped off and the tone became icier as tensions mounted between Russia and the West after Moscow illegally annexed Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula in 2014 and faced allegations of meddling in the 2016 U.S. elections.
Putin’s last visit to the U.S. was in 2015, when he attended the U.N. General Assembly meeting in New York. The meeting in Alaska would be the first U.S.-Russia summit since 2021, when former President Joe Biden met Putin in Geneva.
After announcing Friday a framework aimed at ending decades of conflict elsewhere in the world — between Armenia and Azerbaijan — Trump said he would meet with Putin “very shortly.” His subsequent post said “the highly anticipated meeting” would happen Aug. 15 in Alaska and more details would follow.
‘Swapping territories’
Trump had told reporters that the summit would have been sooner, “but I guess there’s security arrangements that unfortunately people have to make.”Trump said, “President Putin, I believe, wants to see peace, and Zelenskyy wants to see peace.” He said that, “In all fairness to President Zelenskyy, he’s getting everything he needs to, assuming we get something done.”
Trump said a peace deal would likely mean Ukraine and Russia would swap some territory they each control.
"Nothing easy,” the president said. “But we’re gonna get some back. We’re gonna get some switched. There’ll be some swapping of territories, to the betterment of both.”
Pressed on if this was the last chance to make a major peace deal, Trump said, “I don’t like using the term last chance,” and said that, “When those guns start going off, it’s awfully tough to get ’em to stop.”
Exasperated that Putin did not heed his calls to stop bombing Ukrainian cities, Trump almost two weeks ago moved up his ultimatum to impose additional sanctions on Russia and introduce secondary tariffs targeting countries that buy Russian oil if the Kremlin did not move toward a settlement.
The deadline was Friday. But the White House did not answer questions that evening about the state of possible sanctions after Trump’s announcement of an upcoming meeting with Putin.
Prior to Trump announcing the meeting with Putin, his efforts to pressure Russia into stopping the fighting had delivered no progress. The Kremlin’s bigger army is slowly advancing deeper into Ukraine at great cost in troops and armor while it relentlessly bombards Ukrainian cities. Russia and Ukraine are far apart on their terms for peace.
auxman
Deus vult...
BREAKING:
Zelensky says Ukraine refuses to withdraw its troops from the Donetsk region according to Putin’s Alaska Plan.
An emergency summit between Ukrainian, European and U.S. representatives will now be held in London. Europe also doesn’t accept Putin’s Alaska Plan.
View: https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1954097341411004420?t=H5NSU5y-5bjtM2qiwtbNcA&s=19
Zelensky says Ukraine refuses to withdraw its troops from the Donetsk region according to Putin’s Alaska Plan.
An emergency summit between Ukrainian, European and U.S. representatives will now be held in London. Europe also doesn’t accept Putin’s Alaska Plan.
View: https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1954097341411004420?t=H5NSU5y-5bjtM2qiwtbNcA&s=19
Lone Eagle Woman
Veteran Member
Do think personally this is Absolutely Great!!!! Now meeting up and talking with each other is a far far far better alternative then shooting off our nuclear missiles at each other. What could be accomplished with us working together then always being antagonistic towards each other. The Globalists want their wars and are afraid of Russia and the US working together in peace and harmony. In my opinion again ... Great Great Great!
Amen! I second your entire post.
Old Greek
Veteran Member
ivantherussian03
Veteran Member
I am running a lottery board on the meeting location. Spots are filling up fast. Five bucks gets you in. So far the Captain Cook hotel and the Elmendorf airforce base are taken.
coalcracker
Veteran Member
Macgyver
You also got your last Timebomb. Well that sucks.
Russians Warn 'Titanic Efforts' Are Underway to Disrupt the Trump-Putin Meeting in Alaska | The Gateway Pundit | by Paul Serran
As a result of the eleventh-hour trip from US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff to Moscow, a meeting between Donald J.
www.thegatewaypundit.com
Russians Warn 'Titanic Efforts' Are Underway to Disrupt the Trump-Putin Meeting in Alaska
Trump and Putin’s meeting in Alaska is a major chance for peace -and the warmongers are in a panic.
As a result of the eleventh-hour trip from US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff to Moscow, a meeting between Donald J. Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin became a reality – and what’s more, both sides now firmly believe that there’s an acceptable plan being negotiated that will put an end to the war in Ukraine.
What exactly this plan is the public hasn’t been told, which leaves plenty of space for the MSM to fill in the blanks with propaganda aimed at disrupting the summit and the peace progress.
Besides that, there’s also the fact that – as expected – Ukraine has been put in a secondary position, out of the main discussion – and the same goes for any of the war-mongering European leaders.
What ensues is that, just as soon as it has been confirmed that US President Donald J. Trump and Russia’s Vladimir Putin will meet in Alaska, Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky has taken to the internet to try to disrupt the proceedings and reject a plan that hasn’t even been presented yet.
But that’s not all: Russia’s Special Envoy for investment and economic cooperation Kirill Dmitriev alerted that ‘certain countries’ will make ‘titanic efforts’ in order to disrupt the Trump-Putin meeting next Friday, August 15.
Reuters reported:
“Trump had said earlier that Russia and Ukraine were close to a ceasefire deal that could resolve the three-and-a-half-year conflict. The contents of the deal have yet to be announced, but it could require Ukraine to surrender significant territory – an outcome many European nations oppose. Dmitriev accused unnamed countries of seeking to prolong the war.
‘Undoubtedly, a number of countries interested in continuing the conflict will make titanic efforts to disrupt the planned meeting between President Putin and President Trump’, he said in a post in his Telegram account, specifying that by efforts he meant ‘provocations and disinformation’’.”
Dmitriev warns that warmongers will try to disrupt the Alaska meeting.
While Dmitriev did not specify which countries he was referring to, we all know that the European ‘allies’ to the US have an interest in keep dialing the anti-Russian frenzy to the max.
Like Macron, for example, always meddling on issues he is not part of:
Watch: Bolton also trying to keep peace from breaking out.
As for what kinds of provocations might ensue, we don’t know. But the peace message is ringing loud and clear.
auxman
Deus vult...
Anchorage is a likely location due to established infrastructure. That's about as specific as I will get...
AlaskaSue
North to the Future
You could well be right on that, my friend! I was almost thinking Kodiak or Sitka, due to history - but your thought is more on target.
You make a good point about Alyeska being a nice joint.
I don't know what kind of VIP accommodations are at JBER but the Captain Cook has always been the hotel of choice in downtown Los Anchorage. Alyeska would be a long drive along the Seward highway (about 15-20 miles or so, maybe) with excellent whale watching but I imagine that would give the security agencies the heebee-jeebees about protecting their principals as the entire areas of Anchorage (including JBER) and the route to the Alyeska resort are snugged up against the Chugach mountains. Lots of places for missile and sniper teams to hide.
You know, everyone has assumed that Anchorage would be the meeting point but security- and resource-wise, Fairbanks might be ideal in terms of security. The city is smaller, protected by its inland location and the through traffic this time of year is actually trucking traffic headed to the North Slope and tourism. I don't know the VIP accommodations on the bases or choice hotels in town.
My first recommendation about the lack of knowledge I have about using Fairbanks instead, would be to consult with Alaska Sue for the latest inside knowledge of inland Alaska. That's closer to her stomping grounds and she has better understanding of the FB area than I do.
For general information: (Elmendorf and Fort Rich were combined some years ago to become Joint Base Elmendorf Richardson, so you'll probably see the above abbreviation (JBER) often this week. The second part of that is that the two bases up in Fairbanks were combined as well - Eielson AFB - where the F-22s and F35s known as the Top Cover wings are stationed - and Fort Wainwright) So its official moniker would be JBEW).
Anyway, Eielson is actually southeast of Fairbanks - fairly well-isolated. Security and anti-missile teams could be positioned all around that base but they'd need gallons of mosquito repellent. They'd need it down in Anchorage, too, far as that goes.
As a point of interest, one travels through North Pole, Alaska when going to Eielson from the city of Fairbanks.
Last edited:
You're right, but chances are things could be messed up for you, sad to say. But who knows - maybe not!
Besides the hordes of security teams and big aircraft carrying limos - and maybe choppers as well - coming in early, I suspect that the presidents will arrive the day before to catch some rest and have final meetings with their teams before the summit happens.
The good thing is that both bases have their own runways, so traffic out of Anchorage Intl might not be affected as much as it could be, other than severe no-fly zones or something. There'll be lots of fighters patrolling and choppers running around as well, I reckon.
Just to unsettle you some more, it wouldn't be a surprise if the recent earthquakes and volcano eruptions in Kamchatka caused some of the volcanoes across the Cook Inlet deciding to let go.
Not even humanitarian.
Let the Eurotrash do something besides their endless public cheerleading to prolong this war and send that kind of stuff themselves. It's sad to think that it wouldn't probably get to where it was needed before the corruptionists in Ukraine stole it, but that would happen if we sent it, too.
But definitely end the targeting intelligence first.
wait-n-see
Veteran Member
Based on the news coming out since yesterday, running a lottery board on the chances of the meeting even taking place this Friday would be a viable one.
Bones
Veteran Member
Just perusing the local neighborhoods to get a feel for some less likely but more remote spots.
So I looked way out into the hinter-boonies and considered the Aleutian Island chain. The sort of main port is the town of Unalaska but the common name for the port is Dutch Harbor. Its airport, however, is only 4500 feet long and is optimistically described as being in "fair condition". Probably not a suitable candidate. If it was somehow considered, though, the place would be way easier to secure than a site in/near Anchorage. If memory serves me right, there's a Coast Guard base somewhere around the Aleutians.
Except for the whole town probably smelling of fish processing (including hotels and taverns), the benefit would be the freshest king crab and halibut feasts which could be had right off the boats.
Another off-the-wall location which is actually closer to Russia yet quite remote would be the town of Nome along the Bering Sea. This is the town which hosts the finish of the Iditarod race every year. A quick check of the airport shows two bisecting asphalt runways of approx. 6000 feet. It appears that there's an Air National Guard contingent based on the airport with their heavy haulers that they use. I doubt the town could put up with the flood of press available but it'd be fun if the presidents met there and blocked off the whole place for the press. The onsite security would be a piece of cake compared to Anchorage.
And besides, the presidents could stay in the accommodations in which Iditarod winners have stayed and probably all the caribou and salmon they could eat.
Last edited:
Oh well, I'm done on this thread unless there are questions. Thanks, ivantherussian03, this has been a fun thread which has brought back a lot of memories from over 25 years ago. It's odd that no one has mentioned the Kenai peninsula, Kodiak Island or even Juneau so far, though.
ETA: I'm certain that by now the venue has been agreed upon and will be held in secret until some asshat from our side leaks it to the media. Now both the security teams have their advance personnel and equipment on the ground and are doing initial sweeps and checks. The kitchens will have to get used to constant security presence but it's really not much more than what they've done many times. Thinking back to the early days from the Bidet administration, I remember the tumult arising from the first meeting between the globalist Blinken and the Chinese foreign minister in Anchorage. Blinken was the subject of a very unusual and intense berating to begin the diplomatic relationship, which went steadily downhill from there. Adults in charge - yeah right. How about obscure underlings being in charge?
The governor will probably be consulted on the suggested menu, if only as a matter of courtesy. Giving the Russians some of their own black caviar and pickled herring as an appetizer might be a nice touch, as they used to be very available and in good quality way back when. Then again, maybe the social controllers want to keep everything 'Murrican.
ETA: I'm certain that by now the venue has been agreed upon and will be held in secret until some asshat from our side leaks it to the media. Now both the security teams have their advance personnel and equipment on the ground and are doing initial sweeps and checks. The kitchens will have to get used to constant security presence but it's really not much more than what they've done many times. Thinking back to the early days from the Bidet administration, I remember the tumult arising from the first meeting between the globalist Blinken and the Chinese foreign minister in Anchorage. Blinken was the subject of a very unusual and intense berating to begin the diplomatic relationship, which went steadily downhill from there. Adults in charge - yeah right. How about obscure underlings being in charge?
The governor will probably be consulted on the suggested menu, if only as a matter of courtesy. Giving the Russians some of their own black caviar and pickled herring as an appetizer might be a nice touch, as they used to be very available and in good quality way back when. Then again, maybe the social controllers want to keep everything 'Murrican.
Last edited:
von Koehler
Has No Life - Lives on TB
3:21 minutes
Russia wants Alaska back. Amazing how people can evade the evidence of their own eyes.
Last edited:
ivantherussian03
Veteran Member
Alyeska is one road in one road out, which is a no go I think.
ivantherussian03
Veteran Member
FDR offered to meet Stalin at Juneau., during WW2
zookeeper9
Veteran Member
My son lives in North Pole. I am sure he would not appreciate it....
That rings true. Alaskans care very little about folks from Outside invading them.
Seeker22
Has No Life - Lives on TB
Just to unsettle you some more, it wouldn't be a surprise if the recent earthquakes and volcano eruptions in Kamchatka caused some of the volcanoes across the Cook Inlet deciding to let go.
I'm getting an extremely strong vibe on this. Corn cravings non existent for several years are now off the charts.
Hummm.........
Posted for fair use......
billemmott.substack.com
Aug 09, 2025
It will be the moment Ukraine and its European supporters have been hoping for, but also one they have been dreading. The summit between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, which yesterday evening the White House and Kremlin said will take place in Alaska on August 15th, in theory represents the best chance this year that America could put real pressure on Russia to stop its war on Ukraine. But, sadly and much more likely, it also represents the worst danger that Trump could be sweet-talked by Putin into selling out Ukraine’s legitimate interests.
Like Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the leaders of France, Germany, Britain and Italy have not been invited to the summit, as superpowers prefer to talk to each other alone, rather as if they own the world. But all the Europeans must make sure that their influence is present, firmly in the minds both of the Russian and the American presidents. And they will need to make it clear that a Putin-Trump deal over Ukraine without Ukraine’s or its European neighbours’ consent will be no deal at all.
The prospects are not good. The latest demands made by Russia during lower-level talks with Ukraine in June left the two sides impossibly far apart, with Russia demanding even that Ukraine should be “demilitarised”, that there should be no foreign armies involved in policing a ceasefire or protecting Ukraine and that Russia should gain all the lands in eastern Ukraine that it has claimed, including areas it has failed to conquer. For Putin to abandon those demands in talks with Trump would represent a major climbdown — yet exactly that climbdown is what is needed if peace is ever to be achieved.
As we have seen over tariffs, Trump’s normal negotiating technique is to make bold demands and loud threats, in the hope that his opponents will be intimidated, allowing a deal to be struck somewhere Trump sees as being favourable to him. Yet for Russia his technique has been neither bold nor loud. So far, it has not seemed at all designed to intimidate Putin into making compromises.
This may be because he loves dictators like Putin more than he does democratically elected leaders. But it is also because in this case he is negotiating over lands, interests and above all people that are somebody else’s, not his. So his definition of “success” seems to pay little heed to the interests of Ukraine or its public opinion.
This is illustrated by the fact that the few threats Trump has made towards Putin have been uncharacteristically vague and not terribly threatening. He has spoken rather unspecifically of being “disappointed” at Putin, while saying quite softly that he is considering tougher economic sanctions on Russia while, strangely, imposing tariffs on American imports from some buyers of Russian oil, but not all, in the hope of hurting Russian revenues. India is wondering why it has been singled out for such punitive tariffs, leaving Turkey, China and other Russian customers untouched.
Last month, Trump did reverse course on a decision by his Defence Department to stop supplying Ukraine with weapons, but only on condition that European governments should pay for them. Moreover, the quantities of weapons so far involved do not represent a major threat to Russia. Some optimistic commentators have labelled Trump’s change on this issue as a “pivot” to Ukraine’s side, but while the change was certainly welcome it would be premature to see it as decisive.
Ukrainians’ and Europeans’ greatest fear will be that in his desperation to come out of a summit looking like a peacemaker Trump will be the one who makes concessions to Putin, not the other way around, and that President Zelenskyy will find himself trapped in a position of having to oppose what he and the Ukrainian public see as an unacceptable peace. European leaders now need to work hard to reduce that danger.
One way to do that would be immediately to announce further supplies of long-range missiles and other weapons systems to Ukraine, showing that the Europeans are determined that the Ukrainians will continue to be able to fight back and to hurt Russia badly for however long the war goes on. Another way would be to use the days before the summit to communicate clearly to Trump and his staff what Ukraine’s, and hence also the Europeans’, priorities will be in any negotiation.
European diplomats could also mutter, unofficially of course, that if America sells Ukraine out then it can go whistle for the US$600 billion of energy, defence purchases and investments that Trump has claimed the EU has agreed to make in America. Trump’s claim was largely imaginary in any case, but it clearly mattered a lot to him, so threatening to make it clear that such investments and purchases will now never happen might make him cautious. The main reason why the EU chose not to retaliate against Trump’s tariffs and to go along with his claim about investments is that it couldn’t afford to risk losing American support for Ukraine. If that motive disappears, the gloves can come off.
Territory should be the easiest issue to set clear rules for in any peace negotiation. Ukraine has already made it clear that it can accept a ceasefire that freezes the lands already occupied by the Russians, even if it will be unwilling to sign any permanent treaty ceding those territories to Russia. But neither Europeans nor Ukrainians would accept Russian occupation of any lands the Russians do not currently hold. Immediately after Trump yesterday started talking airily of “swapping of territories”, President Zelenskyy stated unequivocally that Ukrainians are “not willing to gift their land to the occupier”.
Second, the Europeans can make it clear that there is zero chance that a country that has been invaded and has seen hundreds of thousands of its citizens killed is going to accept any form of “demilitarisation”, which would simply leave it vulnerable to a new invasion. The “reassurance force” of troops and aircraft to be assembled by France, Britain and other members of the 30-country “coalition of the willing” must be allowed to enter Ukraine and help to enforce the ceasefire. Otherwise, no ceasefire agreement can be expected to last for more than a few months.
Putin’s demands that Ukraine should be barred from joining NATO are the easiest to agree to: there is no chance of it joining anyway for as long as Trump is in the White House, and no promise made now can bind Trump’s successors. But there is no reason why this should also exclude the presence in Ukraine of the foreign “reassurance force”.
A third issue that Europeans should encouraged Trump to highlight at the summit is Russia’s abduction during the war of an estimated 35,000 Ukrainian children. Russia has held these children to undermine morale in Ukraine. By highlighting the issue in a high-profile international setting, Trump would have a chance of embarrassing Putin, even though this ex-KGB agent is not a man who is easily embarrassed. There should be no chance in any case of agreeing to drop war crimes indictments against Putin and Russia’s military leaders, but the issue of the abducted children should surely be the clincher on this, even for Trump. Plenty of his pro-Ukrainian Republican Party backers should be persuadable to come out on Ukraine’s side on this.
The biggest question lying behind this summit is that of whether Putin will arrive feeling he is in a strong or a weak position. Trump’s soft treatment of him will doubtless make Putin feel confident. However Russia’s attempts this summer to win more Ukrainian territory have largely failed, meaning that the Russian military’s estimated one million or more casualties in this war have occurred for little benefit. Some economists think that with the global oil price below US$70, the Russian economy is showing signs of strain. Putin really ought to feel weak, even if he will do his best not to show it. Europeans can and should brief Trump about how weak Putin’s position really is.
Let us be realistic: the forthcoming summit, if it actually takes place, is unlikely to produce any sudden move towards a credible peace. The best we can hope for is for the summit to begin a process that would consist of several events during the next few months at which the pressure on Russia can be steadily increased, changing Putin’s calculations and those of the people around him about the benefits of continuing to fight. The worst outcome would be a public row between Ukraine, European leaders and America over the shape of a future peace deal. Nonetheless, one thing is clear: no one, including even Russia, should want this war to be continuing in 2026.
Comments 4
Posted for fair use......
The Trump-Putin Alaska summit will produce more dread than hope
Updated English version of article published in Italian this morning by La Stampa, taking account of the confirmed date of August 15th and Trump's remarks about Ukrainian territories
billemmott.substack.com
The Trump-Putin Alaska summit will produce more dread than hope
Updated English version of article published in Italian this morning by La Stampa, taking account of the confirmed date of August 15th and Trump's remarks about Ukrainian territories
Bill EmmottAug 09, 2025
It will be the moment Ukraine and its European supporters have been hoping for, but also one they have been dreading. The summit between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, which yesterday evening the White House and Kremlin said will take place in Alaska on August 15th, in theory represents the best chance this year that America could put real pressure on Russia to stop its war on Ukraine. But, sadly and much more likely, it also represents the worst danger that Trump could be sweet-talked by Putin into selling out Ukraine’s legitimate interests.
Like Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the leaders of France, Germany, Britain and Italy have not been invited to the summit, as superpowers prefer to talk to each other alone, rather as if they own the world. But all the Europeans must make sure that their influence is present, firmly in the minds both of the Russian and the American presidents. And they will need to make it clear that a Putin-Trump deal over Ukraine without Ukraine’s or its European neighbours’ consent will be no deal at all.
The prospects are not good. The latest demands made by Russia during lower-level talks with Ukraine in June left the two sides impossibly far apart, with Russia demanding even that Ukraine should be “demilitarised”, that there should be no foreign armies involved in policing a ceasefire or protecting Ukraine and that Russia should gain all the lands in eastern Ukraine that it has claimed, including areas it has failed to conquer. For Putin to abandon those demands in talks with Trump would represent a major climbdown — yet exactly that climbdown is what is needed if peace is ever to be achieved.
As we have seen over tariffs, Trump’s normal negotiating technique is to make bold demands and loud threats, in the hope that his opponents will be intimidated, allowing a deal to be struck somewhere Trump sees as being favourable to him. Yet for Russia his technique has been neither bold nor loud. So far, it has not seemed at all designed to intimidate Putin into making compromises.
This may be because he loves dictators like Putin more than he does democratically elected leaders. But it is also because in this case he is negotiating over lands, interests and above all people that are somebody else’s, not his. So his definition of “success” seems to pay little heed to the interests of Ukraine or its public opinion.
This is illustrated by the fact that the few threats Trump has made towards Putin have been uncharacteristically vague and not terribly threatening. He has spoken rather unspecifically of being “disappointed” at Putin, while saying quite softly that he is considering tougher economic sanctions on Russia while, strangely, imposing tariffs on American imports from some buyers of Russian oil, but not all, in the hope of hurting Russian revenues. India is wondering why it has been singled out for such punitive tariffs, leaving Turkey, China and other Russian customers untouched.
Last month, Trump did reverse course on a decision by his Defence Department to stop supplying Ukraine with weapons, but only on condition that European governments should pay for them. Moreover, the quantities of weapons so far involved do not represent a major threat to Russia. Some optimistic commentators have labelled Trump’s change on this issue as a “pivot” to Ukraine’s side, but while the change was certainly welcome it would be premature to see it as decisive.
Ukrainians’ and Europeans’ greatest fear will be that in his desperation to come out of a summit looking like a peacemaker Trump will be the one who makes concessions to Putin, not the other way around, and that President Zelenskyy will find himself trapped in a position of having to oppose what he and the Ukrainian public see as an unacceptable peace. European leaders now need to work hard to reduce that danger.
One way to do that would be immediately to announce further supplies of long-range missiles and other weapons systems to Ukraine, showing that the Europeans are determined that the Ukrainians will continue to be able to fight back and to hurt Russia badly for however long the war goes on. Another way would be to use the days before the summit to communicate clearly to Trump and his staff what Ukraine’s, and hence also the Europeans’, priorities will be in any negotiation.
European diplomats could also mutter, unofficially of course, that if America sells Ukraine out then it can go whistle for the US$600 billion of energy, defence purchases and investments that Trump has claimed the EU has agreed to make in America. Trump’s claim was largely imaginary in any case, but it clearly mattered a lot to him, so threatening to make it clear that such investments and purchases will now never happen might make him cautious. The main reason why the EU chose not to retaliate against Trump’s tariffs and to go along with his claim about investments is that it couldn’t afford to risk losing American support for Ukraine. If that motive disappears, the gloves can come off.
Territory should be the easiest issue to set clear rules for in any peace negotiation. Ukraine has already made it clear that it can accept a ceasefire that freezes the lands already occupied by the Russians, even if it will be unwilling to sign any permanent treaty ceding those territories to Russia. But neither Europeans nor Ukrainians would accept Russian occupation of any lands the Russians do not currently hold. Immediately after Trump yesterday started talking airily of “swapping of territories”, President Zelenskyy stated unequivocally that Ukrainians are “not willing to gift their land to the occupier”.
Second, the Europeans can make it clear that there is zero chance that a country that has been invaded and has seen hundreds of thousands of its citizens killed is going to accept any form of “demilitarisation”, which would simply leave it vulnerable to a new invasion. The “reassurance force” of troops and aircraft to be assembled by France, Britain and other members of the 30-country “coalition of the willing” must be allowed to enter Ukraine and help to enforce the ceasefire. Otherwise, no ceasefire agreement can be expected to last for more than a few months.
Putin’s demands that Ukraine should be barred from joining NATO are the easiest to agree to: there is no chance of it joining anyway for as long as Trump is in the White House, and no promise made now can bind Trump’s successors. But there is no reason why this should also exclude the presence in Ukraine of the foreign “reassurance force”.
A third issue that Europeans should encouraged Trump to highlight at the summit is Russia’s abduction during the war of an estimated 35,000 Ukrainian children. Russia has held these children to undermine morale in Ukraine. By highlighting the issue in a high-profile international setting, Trump would have a chance of embarrassing Putin, even though this ex-KGB agent is not a man who is easily embarrassed. There should be no chance in any case of agreeing to drop war crimes indictments against Putin and Russia’s military leaders, but the issue of the abducted children should surely be the clincher on this, even for Trump. Plenty of his pro-Ukrainian Republican Party backers should be persuadable to come out on Ukraine’s side on this.
The biggest question lying behind this summit is that of whether Putin will arrive feeling he is in a strong or a weak position. Trump’s soft treatment of him will doubtless make Putin feel confident. However Russia’s attempts this summer to win more Ukrainian territory have largely failed, meaning that the Russian military’s estimated one million or more casualties in this war have occurred for little benefit. Some economists think that with the global oil price below US$70, the Russian economy is showing signs of strain. Putin really ought to feel weak, even if he will do his best not to show it. Europeans can and should brief Trump about how weak Putin’s position really is.
Let us be realistic: the forthcoming summit, if it actually takes place, is unlikely to produce any sudden move towards a credible peace. The best we can hope for is for the summit to begin a process that would consist of several events during the next few months at which the pressure on Russia can be steadily increased, changing Putin’s calculations and those of the people around him about the benefits of continuing to fight. The worst outcome would be a public row between Ukraine, European leaders and America over the shape of a future peace deal. Nonetheless, one thing is clear: no one, including even Russia, should want this war to be continuing in 2026.
Comments 4
Posted for fair use......
asiatimes.com
Ukraine War
by Stephen Bryen August 11, 2025
Speculation is rife about the upcoming Donald Trump-Vladimir Putin meeting in Alaska, the leaders’ first meeting during the second Trump administration.
Volodymyr Zelensky in Ukraine is deeply fraught because he thinks the Trump-Zelensky deal will involve (give away?) Ukrainian territory. Zelensky says no way.
Meanwhile, the Europeans, those countries that cannot defend themselves on their own and will never be able to do so because of their cumulative incompetence, are demanding a seat at the table where they intend to scuttle any deal.
The Europeans were not invited, but Trump sent Vice President J.D. Vance to mollycoddle them. He will do as instructed by his boss. He apparently says that a Trump-Putin deal should be based on current battle lines.
Other than that, we only have wild speculation on what any Trump-Putin deal will look like. We are operating in the dark. Trump and Putin want to talk about Ukraine and possible strategic issues between Russia and the United States.
Putin’s and Russia’s goals are clear and unambiguous. There is little doubt Trump knows exactly what they are. To remind him, Russian politicians, with Putin in the lead, repeat them often.
What do we know? Putin and Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, spent three hours, more or less, talking over the issues. As was evident from the brief video released by the Kremlin, Putin warmly welcomed Witkoff, all smiles.
This tells us there was a lot of preliminary work done through various diplomatic channels. None of these channels included Ukraine or any European leader.
Still, Putin and Witkoff needed three hours to achieve some precision in what had previously been discussed, and no doubt they were laser-focused on the issues.
The outcome was enough for Trump to praise the Witkoff-Putin meeting, and a meeting between the two heads of state was agreed. (Anyone who claims to know what was said in detail is smoking the New York Times.)
Beyond that, we know that Trump wants a deal that ends the fighting, so whatever was worked out includes an end to the fighting. Some could call it a Ukrainian capitulation (which is precisely what Zelensky thinks he is fighting against); in Trump’s language, though, it would be a ceasefire
But there would be no further reason for the two leaders to meet unless there were many other parts to the deal that they are trying to conclude. It is the “other parts” that are intriguing and unknown, even though everyone thinks they know what they don’t know. (Parts are not parts in this context.)
Everyone knows, and Zelensky vociferously confirms, that Zelensky cannot agree to any territorial concessions. It is hard to figure out any workaround that would bring Zelensky on board, and it may well be that no other prospective Ukrainian leaders could agree either (unless they were stooges of the Russians, and then they would have a short life span).
From Zelensky’s point of view, which is probably no longer supported by the Ukrainian public that is increasingly tired of the war and the casualties, giving up territory would signal the collapse of Ukraine’s army, making Ukraine subject to full Russian control.
The Russians say they do not want to control Ukraine, that Putin wants a neutral and peaceful Ukrainian neighbor with only a small army and with no NATO membership. Oddly enough, a peaceful Ukraine would strategically suit Europe, which needs at least a decade to get its armed forces and defense industries in order.
That is, of course, if you buy all the claims being made by European countries (UK, France and Germany especially) and by the EU that they are going to build a strong fortress Europe and support Ukraine all-in, as if they have the resources and will to make any of this happen.
If you think it may be a scam, you are likely on the right track: Europe’s objective is to get the US to provide the real security backbone for the continent. Meanwhile, the money flowing into European defense companies is more designed to provide employment (jobs) rather than to build weapons.
The latest indicator is that the Italian government has asked its flagship defense company, Leonardo, to figure out how to spend a windfall of euros, so they will find some gold-plated, irrelevant solutions to meet a political and economic need.
It is also clear, though, that the “big” European governments, and the EU itself, are in a lot of political trouble. The ridiculous low polling of Britain’s Labor government shows, as Henny Penny said, the sky is falling.
The current gaggle of European leaders – Germany, France, UK, Poland (maybe not Italy) – is not likely to last, at most, a few years, after which conservative, nationalist governments will replace them. Thinking that these in-power leaders can really arrange the future is not believable.
For Trump, the problem is a different one. In a perfect world, he would like to settle the Ukraine war and stabilize the US’s role in Europe, which is nearly impossible because of the European leadership clique.
But beyond that, Trump wants to counter China, and he needs to find a way to pull Russia away from its strategic alignment with the Beijing behemoth. That is one of the big reasons he wants to court Putin. Trump has leverage: he can help Russia restart its economy by lifting sanctions and making investments.
He can share “big tech”, including American AI. There is a risk in doing so, but either Russia gets the technology from China or from the United States. Trump’s real secret weapon is to restore Russia’s legitimacy as not just a leader of failed states such as North Korea and Iran.
But Trump may not be able to fashion a package that will have US domestic support, let alone anything forthcoming in a positive direction from Europe. We really don’t know if he is even serious or if he is setting Putin up.
The captive Western press, unfortunately, has it all backwards: they think Putin has Trump in the palm of his hand. This is nonsense and terribly misleading. Trump has more cards than Putin, though both like poker.
We have to wait and see how all this plays out – whether any success comes from the upcoming meeting, or the failure in Ukraine is left to the two fighting forces to settle somehow. But speculation for now is folly.
Stephen Bryen is a special correspondent to Asia Times and former US deputy undersecretary of defense for policy. This article, which originally appeared in his Substack newsletter Weapons and Strategy, is republished with permission.
Trump-Putin meeting speculation a road to nowhere - Asia Times
Speculation is rife about the upcoming Donald Trump-Vladimir Putin meeting in Alaska, the leaders’ first meeting during the second Trump administration.
asiatimes.com
Ukraine War
Trump-Putin meeting speculation a road to nowhere
Trump wants a deal and Putin sending positive vibes but nobody really knows what each will bring to the table in Alaskaby Stephen Bryen August 11, 2025
Speculation is rife about the upcoming Donald Trump-Vladimir Putin meeting in Alaska, the leaders’ first meeting during the second Trump administration.
Volodymyr Zelensky in Ukraine is deeply fraught because he thinks the Trump-Zelensky deal will involve (give away?) Ukrainian territory. Zelensky says no way.
Meanwhile, the Europeans, those countries that cannot defend themselves on their own and will never be able to do so because of their cumulative incompetence, are demanding a seat at the table where they intend to scuttle any deal.
The Europeans were not invited, but Trump sent Vice President J.D. Vance to mollycoddle them. He will do as instructed by his boss. He apparently says that a Trump-Putin deal should be based on current battle lines.
Other than that, we only have wild speculation on what any Trump-Putin deal will look like. We are operating in the dark. Trump and Putin want to talk about Ukraine and possible strategic issues between Russia and the United States.
Putin’s and Russia’s goals are clear and unambiguous. There is little doubt Trump knows exactly what they are. To remind him, Russian politicians, with Putin in the lead, repeat them often.
What do we know? Putin and Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, spent three hours, more or less, talking over the issues. As was evident from the brief video released by the Kremlin, Putin warmly welcomed Witkoff, all smiles.
This tells us there was a lot of preliminary work done through various diplomatic channels. None of these channels included Ukraine or any European leader.
Still, Putin and Witkoff needed three hours to achieve some precision in what had previously been discussed, and no doubt they were laser-focused on the issues.
The outcome was enough for Trump to praise the Witkoff-Putin meeting, and a meeting between the two heads of state was agreed. (Anyone who claims to know what was said in detail is smoking the New York Times.)
Beyond that, we know that Trump wants a deal that ends the fighting, so whatever was worked out includes an end to the fighting. Some could call it a Ukrainian capitulation (which is precisely what Zelensky thinks he is fighting against); in Trump’s language, though, it would be a ceasefire
But there would be no further reason for the two leaders to meet unless there were many other parts to the deal that they are trying to conclude. It is the “other parts” that are intriguing and unknown, even though everyone thinks they know what they don’t know. (Parts are not parts in this context.)
Everyone knows, and Zelensky vociferously confirms, that Zelensky cannot agree to any territorial concessions. It is hard to figure out any workaround that would bring Zelensky on board, and it may well be that no other prospective Ukrainian leaders could agree either (unless they were stooges of the Russians, and then they would have a short life span).
From Zelensky’s point of view, which is probably no longer supported by the Ukrainian public that is increasingly tired of the war and the casualties, giving up territory would signal the collapse of Ukraine’s army, making Ukraine subject to full Russian control.
The Russians say they do not want to control Ukraine, that Putin wants a neutral and peaceful Ukrainian neighbor with only a small army and with no NATO membership. Oddly enough, a peaceful Ukraine would strategically suit Europe, which needs at least a decade to get its armed forces and defense industries in order.
That is, of course, if you buy all the claims being made by European countries (UK, France and Germany especially) and by the EU that they are going to build a strong fortress Europe and support Ukraine all-in, as if they have the resources and will to make any of this happen.
If you think it may be a scam, you are likely on the right track: Europe’s objective is to get the US to provide the real security backbone for the continent. Meanwhile, the money flowing into European defense companies is more designed to provide employment (jobs) rather than to build weapons.
The latest indicator is that the Italian government has asked its flagship defense company, Leonardo, to figure out how to spend a windfall of euros, so they will find some gold-plated, irrelevant solutions to meet a political and economic need.
It is also clear, though, that the “big” European governments, and the EU itself, are in a lot of political trouble. The ridiculous low polling of Britain’s Labor government shows, as Henny Penny said, the sky is falling.
The current gaggle of European leaders – Germany, France, UK, Poland (maybe not Italy) – is not likely to last, at most, a few years, after which conservative, nationalist governments will replace them. Thinking that these in-power leaders can really arrange the future is not believable.
For Trump, the problem is a different one. In a perfect world, he would like to settle the Ukraine war and stabilize the US’s role in Europe, which is nearly impossible because of the European leadership clique.
But beyond that, Trump wants to counter China, and he needs to find a way to pull Russia away from its strategic alignment with the Beijing behemoth. That is one of the big reasons he wants to court Putin. Trump has leverage: he can help Russia restart its economy by lifting sanctions and making investments.
He can share “big tech”, including American AI. There is a risk in doing so, but either Russia gets the technology from China or from the United States. Trump’s real secret weapon is to restore Russia’s legitimacy as not just a leader of failed states such as North Korea and Iran.
But Trump may not be able to fashion a package that will have US domestic support, let alone anything forthcoming in a positive direction from Europe. We really don’t know if he is even serious or if he is setting Putin up.
The captive Western press, unfortunately, has it all backwards: they think Putin has Trump in the palm of his hand. This is nonsense and terribly misleading. Trump has more cards than Putin, though both like poker.
We have to wait and see how all this plays out – whether any success comes from the upcoming meeting, or the failure in Ukraine is left to the two fighting forces to settle somehow. But speculation for now is folly.
Stephen Bryen is a special correspondent to Asia Times and former US deputy undersecretary of defense for policy. This article, which originally appeared in his Substack newsletter Weapons and Strategy, is republished with permission.
auxman
Deus vult...
The meeting between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump in Alaska may take place in the city of Girdwood
According to the local publication Alaska Landmine, the Alyeska Resort hotel is being considered for the meeting.
At the moment, it is impossible to book accommodation at the hotel on August 14 and 15, which matches the expected dates of the meeting.
Girdwood is a resort town in the southern part of the municipality of Anchorage, Alaska.
View: https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1954849197242434027?t=nqOCMRASbBvRjPh56y0u0A&s=19
According to the local publication Alaska Landmine, the Alyeska Resort hotel is being considered for the meeting.
At the moment, it is impossible to book accommodation at the hotel on August 14 and 15, which matches the expected dates of the meeting.
Girdwood is a resort town in the southern part of the municipality of Anchorage, Alaska.
View: https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1954849197242434027?t=nqOCMRASbBvRjPh56y0u0A&s=19