Wheeling –dealing

The meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin in Alaska, purportedly to broker a ceasefire in Ukraine without the presence of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, presents a highly unorthodox diplomatic scenario with a variety of potential outcomes. This setup, where Trump, the head of the world’s most powerful democracy and Putin, a leader of an aggressor nation are to decide the fate of a third country, has led to significant apprehension among Ukrainian and European officials. The core of this anxiety is the fear that Trump, guided by his transactional approach to foreign policy, may pursue a deal that recognizes Russia’s territorial gains in exchange for a temporary cessation of hostilities and a business deal. The meeting is already causing rifts within the Western alliance, particularly with European nations that are deeply invested in Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. It could legitimize Russia’s illegal annexations and set a dangerous precedent for future international relations. The exclusion of Zelenskyy is the most critical and problematic aspect of this proposed meeting. It violates the fundamental principle of “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine,” which has been a cornerstone of Western policy since the full-scale invasion began. By sidelining Kyiv, the meeting grants Putin a major diplomatic victory, legitimizing his narrative that the conflict is a dispute between great powers rather than a war of aggression against a sovereign nation. The exclusion of Ukraine from a discussion about its own fate is a major diplomatic misstep that Trump empowers Putin the aggressor. Putin’s position is clear: he wants to cement Russia’s territorial occupation and prevent Ukraine from joining NATO. He is unlikely to agree to a full withdrawal from the 20% Ukrainian territories illegally annexed , as this would be a significant political defeat at home. His goal is to secure a “frozen conflict” on his terms, which would leave Russia in control of a significant portion of Ukrainian territory and weaken Ukraine’s long-term viability. Trump’s stated goal is to end the war, something he has claimed he could do swiftly. However, his past rhetoric and actions suggest a potential for unpredictability. While he has recently used strong language, warning of “very severe consequences” for Russia if a deal is not reached, he has, like a real estate moghul also floated the idea of “land swaps.” This suggestion is a non-starter for Ukraine, which has constitutionally enshrined its territorial integrity. The risk is that Trump, in his desire to be seen as a peacemaker, might pressure Ukraine into accepting unfavorable terms. His focus on a deal could lead to a compromise that offers Russia a de facto recognition of its control over illegally occupied regions, undermining international law and setting a dangerous precedent for future conflicts. The outcome is likely to be a mixed bag, with no definitive resolution but a significant shift in the diplomatic landscape. The general view is that the Alaska meeting is unlikely to result in a lasting and just peace. Instead, it will most likely be a transactional “listening exercise,” as described by the White House, that sets the stage for future, and potentially more dangerous, negotiations.