Two summits on the war in Ukraine — in Anchorage and then in Washington — shared, perhaps, one common merit: for the first time in three and a half years, the idea of peace hung in the air. It began to take shape, even offering hope of a swift end to the conflict.
Will it end as quickly as Donald Trump insists, boasting of “stopping six wars”? That remains an open question. But as someone who has covered Kremlin politics for years, I can venture this: when Putin launched the invasion of Ukraine, he hardly intended to resolve it in a meeting with Trump — much less in dialogue with European leaders, whom Moscow openly despises. Just glance at Dmitry Medvedev’s X account, where he hurls profanities straight at Western heads of state.
No wonder both summits left even those far removed from politics puzzled: no ceasefire, not even a symbolic memorandum “for the record.”
Theories and Illusions
So what’s really going on? On the surface, only theories.
- Some argue Trump and Putin are staging a show — letting the Kremlin seize more Ukrainian territory while dragging out aid to Kyiv.
- Others believe Trump has fallen into Putin’s trap. The outcome looks the same.
- A third view: Putin may already be nearing the finish line. Having secured large swathes of the southeast, he could be steering the war toward closure — with Trump as both ally and mirror of his vanity.
- A fourth: everyone at the table is exploiting Trump’s narcissism. Europe humors him because Ukraine’s lifeline of aid depends on Washington. Putin does so because his influence over Trump slows the Western coalition, causing delays in weapons and technology shipments to Kyiv.
Before the Alaska summit on August 15, Trump was warned: Putin, an ex-KGB officer, could use flattery and deceit to trap him — playing on his need for attention and his lack of a coherent Ukraine strategy. Critics stressed the U.S. president risked looking “weak” if he walked away empty-handed.
No Results—or Just a Hidden Process?
Anchorage produced nothing — yet it left an odd sense that something was happening behind closed doors, known only to Putin and Trump. It felt like a breakthrough was near. But in reality, nothing changed.
Strip away the emotions: two major summits back-to-back. Neither altered the battlefield. Russia bombed Ukraine before, during, and after. Homes destroyed, civilians killed. Does this smell like even a temporary truce? Hardly. The Kremlin advances, summer is in full swing, autumn operations lie ahead. Would Putin — who set out to seize Ukraine — pass on the chance to grab more land?
Trump, meanwhile, keeps feeding promises. First, the war would end the moment he won the election. Then, after his inauguration. Now he claims a peace deal is around the corner. But eight months into his presidency, there isn’t even a date for another meeting with Putin. He insists he can bring Putin and Zelensky face to face. Hard to believe, since the Kremlin would have to abandon its own principles to sit down with a man it brands illegitimate.
During the Washington summit, a call between Trump and Putin led Moscow to agree to raise the level of delegations in talks with Ukraine.
For Trump, ending the war is a campaign promise. Failure cuts into his reelection prospects. Add to that the Epstein scandal and looming state and congressional investigations, and the pressure grows.
He seems to believe two or three meetings can close the conflict. But can any “instant peace” ignore war crimes, ruined cities, thousands of dead? The world craves an end to the war — but is it ready to look away from atrocities?
Trump himself has said: Zelensky will have to concede. Obviously — territory. And strikingly, few world leaders openly object anymore.
Washington: High Hopes, Empty Hands
On August 18, the White House hosted the heavyweights: Zelensky, Ursula von der Leyen, NATO’s new Secretary General Mark Rutte, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Macron, Merz, Meloni, Finland’s Alexander Stubb. The atmosphere was thick with anticipation.
Trump played host and mediator, hinting at “progress since Anchorage” and a looming agreement. But no detail followed.
The outcome? Pure disappointment. They talked about security guarantees for Ukraine — but with no timelines, no mechanisms. Europe looked grim. Zelensky thanked allies but stressed: peace is only possible if Ukraine’s territorial integrity is respected. Washington became yet another stage of promises with no action.
What’s Next?
Likely a long series of new meetings. For now, speculation rules — where and when.
- The Tight Trio. Trump says he’s preparing a personal meeting of Putin and Zelensky, followed by a trilateral summit. Location undecided.
- Strong Mediator—or Pseudo One. On Fox News, Trump warned Putin he’d face a “rough situation” if he didn’t move toward peace. He also pressed Zelensky, saying Kyiv “has to show some flexibility.” In Trump’s vision, peace is a deal: one stops resisting, the other agrees.
- Next Time in Moscow? Putin half-jokingly invited Trump “next time in Moscow.” The White House stays silent, but the idea lingers — Kremlin’s way of showing it runs the process.
- The Beijing Parade. Another possible meeting: September 3 in Beijing, at the WWII anniversary parade. Putin is confirmed, Trump uncertain. Zelensky isn’t invited — China frames him as “the West’s problem.”
- Delegation Talks. Working-level meetings are floated — buying time, creating an illusion of movement.
- Phone Diplomacy. Expect more calls: Trump–Putin, Trump–Zelensky. But such conversations rarely yield more than traded promises and blame.
- Security Guarantees. In Washington, Trump teased “almost like NATO’s Article 5, but without membership.” In plain terms: protection without binding law.
Europe isn’t buying it. Brussels is preparing the 19th sanctions package for early September. As Estonia’s Kaja Kallas put it: no concessions to Russia without a full, verifiable ceasefire.
What Could a Peace Deal Look Like?
If one ever materializes, it would have to satisfy too many players: Ukraine, Russia, the U.S., the EU, and assorted “guarantors.” As of August 2025, no draft exists. Only speculation, based on past proposals — the 2022 Istanbul talks, Zelensky’s “peace formula,” and Trump’s ideas.
- Security Guarantees. Ukraine demands NATO-grade commitments. Options: bilateral treaties with the U.S. and UK (“Budapest-2” with teeth); limited NATO integration or an “Israel model” (weapons without membership); Russia’s demand for neutrality remains a sticking point.
- Territories. Russia controls Crimea, Donbas, Kherson, Zaporizhzhia — and isn’t budging. Options: freeze the lines under “temporary control”; delayed referendums; or Kyiv’s demand for full withdrawal, unlikely without compromise.
- Demilitarization. Buffer zones, limits on long-range weapons, international monitoring.
- Economics & Humanitarian. Reparations via frozen Russian assets (~$300 billion); Western aid up to $1 trillion; phased lifting of sanctions tied to troop withdrawal.
- Politics & Law. Reforms in Ukraine (decentralization, minority rights); an international tribunal on war crimes; neutrality or limited EU integration.
Any peace deal would have to be comprehensive — or collapse the moment it’s signed. But is the Kremlin ready to surrender territorial trophies? Is Kyiv ready to accept a “frozen” conflict? And is Trump ready to sell compromise as victory?
Without answers, any paper risks remaining just that — paper.