Ukraine: the show goes on

By Richard North - August 17, 2025

For those who have been closely watching the Ukraine drama played out in Alaska with a meeting between presidents Trump and Putin, the outcome is of no surprise.

According to the New York Times – which appears to be one of the go-to sources on the summit – Putin made the running, proposing to skip talks on a ceasefire, calling instead for immediate talks on a permanent peace agreement.

The price of this deal was also set by Putin: complete control over Donbass – including those remnants not as yet occupied by the Russians – in exchange for the withdrawal of Moscow’s forces from the parts of the Sumy and Karkov oblasts it currently occupies, with the line being frozen along the rest of the front.

The Washinton news website, Axios describes Putin’s “land grab as “maximalist”, justified on the basis that it is only a matter of time before Russian troops complete their conquest (or liberation, as they would put it) of the final part of Donetsk oblast, thus effectively occupying the whole of Donbass.

Rubbing salt into the wound, Putin also wants the US to recognise Russian sovereignty in the parts of Ukraine it would gain under a peace deal. Additionally, Putin says he is willing to discuss security guarantees for Ukraine, but he has mentioned China as one of the possible guarantors, possibly suggesting he would oppose a security force consisting of Nato troops.

There is probably no part of this deal that Zelensky would willingly accept – a stand endorsed by Deutsche Welle, which headlines its report: “For Ukraine, the Alaska summit was a complete disappointment”.

Nevertheless, Trump seems to be in the process of throwing Zelensky under the bus, apparently agreeing (or not disagreeing) with Putin’s proposals. This not only puts Trump at odds with the Ukrainian leader, but the “Europeans” as well, who have been completely sidelined.

More as an expression of fond hopes, rather than realistic expectations, the European Commission has issued a statement headed by commission president von der Leyen and other European leaders.

Tucked into heading is the name of UK prime minister Starmer, who is apparently content to allow the commission to speak for him on this matter, with the statement being reproduced in full on the 10 Downing Street website.

Together, the leaders assert that Ukraine must have ironclad security guarantees to effectively defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity. And while they welcome Trump’s willingness to give security guarantees, they stress that the “coalition of the willing” is ready to play an active role.

Demonstrating their clear detachment from reality, they then state that no limitations should be placed on Ukraine’s armed forces or on its cooperation with third countries, asserting that “Russia cannot have a veto against Ukraine’s pathway to EU and Nato”.

Thus, even if Zelensky can be prevailed upon to cede territory to the Russians – which seems unlikely – no deal can be forthcoming if Trump takes the slightest bit of notice to the Europeans, as Putin would almost certainly walk away from a deal if that “pathway” were kept clear.

Fortunately, Trump is likely to continue with his stance of ignoring the Europeans, although he is scheduled to meet Zelensky in Washington on Monday, with the possibility of a trilateral between Trump, Putin and Zelenski a few days later.

If this happens, Putin suggests that the talks should be held in Moscow, which would seriously put Zelensky on the spot. The Russian capital is not on the top of his bucket-list for a visit, but refusing if invited could create its own array of problems.

Wafting over European sensibilities, Max Boot in an opinion piece for the Washington Post writes under the headline: “The Trump-Putin summit wasn’t a disaster, but it was a US defeat”, remarking that: “Vladimir Putin walked away the victor in his meeting with Donald Trump in Alaska”.

It was not Yalta (1945), where Roosevelt and Churchill handed over Eastern Europe to Soviet domination (albeit with little choice in the matter), Boot says. It was not Vienna (1961), where Nikita Khrushchev was so unimpressed by the young US president, John F. Kennedy, that he was emboldened to build a wall across Berlin and place nuclear missiles in Cuba.

It was not even, Boot continues. Helsinki (2018), where Trump humiliated himself and his country by accepting Putin’s assurances that Russia had not meddled in the 2016 election over the findings of the U.S. intelligence that it had.

The best thing you can say about the summit, he concludes, is that it could have been worse. Trump did not publicly endorse Putin’s demand that Ukraine hand over more territory to Russia in return for a ceasefire (although apparently he told European leaders that this would be the fastest path to peace). Nor was there any deal to relax US sanctions on Russia.

But, if Alaska was not a disaster, it was definitely a defeat, he says. Putin walked away the clear winner from his latest encounter with an American president.

That Putin is the winner is also the view taken by Mathieu von Rohr, writing for Spiegel. Like many, he draws attention to the image of Vladimir Putin on the red carpet. The man who unleashed the bloodiest war in Europe since World War II is courted. Donald Trump applauds him upon arrival.

This is all that remains of the summit in Alaska, von Roohr adds. Images have their own power. They show that Putin is back on the world stage. He didn’t have to do anything except travel to Alaska. He hasn’t abandoned any of his positions, shows no willingness to compromise. And yet he once again seems like a statesman, not an outcast.

As to the Europeans, their weakness is obvious, he says. But they only have themselves to blame for being on the sidelines while their future is being negotiated 7,000 kilometres away. The price of more influence at the negotiating table is more extensive, decisive, and effective the military support provided to Ukraine, without relying American arms deliveries

And while the Alaska show is over, Trump’s show will continue next week in the White House. “But the lesson for Europeans is clear”. Von Rohr concludes. “They cannot trust Trump and must equip themselves for power if they do not want to become spectators of their own destiny”.

Turning to the UK media response, the Telegraph echoes the line taken by the Frankfurter Allgemeine with the headline: “‘It looks like Munich 1938’: Kyiv fears Trump is repeating Chamberlain’s mistakes”, with the sub-head telling us: “Ukrainians ‘sickened’ at Putin’s red-carpet treatment and believe US president played into Russian dictator’s hands”.

The headline quote comes from Oleksandr Merezhko, the chairman of the Ukrainian parliament’s foreign affairs committee. By aligning himself with Putin’s “insincere” peace proposal, the US president risked repeating Neville Chamberlain’s betrayal of Czechoslovakia at the Munich conference of 1938, he says.

Back with DW, it cites Ukrainian political scientist Vadym Denisenko, who believes that Russia’s plan was to do business with the US in exchange for Ukrainian territory, but he argues that this ploy didn’t work. All Putin managed to do was gain time, he says.

Denisenko believes that if no results regarding the end of the war are achieved within two months, China will step in and the issue will become part of Chinese-American negotiations. “In other words”, he predicts, “a new window for negotiations will open earliest at the end of the year, realistically only in spring 2026″.

Meanwhile, with no ceasefire on the table, Putin is free to continue his conquest of Donbass so that, by the time the parties settle down to serious negotiations, Zelensky will have very little to trade.

Currently, therefore, nothing is settled and the possibilities are still wide open. The show goes on.