Nournews:The Friday, August 15, 2025 meeting between the presidents of the United States and Russia at the joint Elmendorf–Richardson military base in Anchorage, Alaska, will mark the first official encounter between the two countries’ leaders in a decade. The session is taking place against the backdrop of deep and significant shifts in the diplomatic and battlefield dynamics of the Ukraine war.
A review of recent statements by Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, as well as reactions from Europe and Ukraine, indicates that Russia can already be seen as the likely winner. The main reason for this assessment is that Putin has skillfully “read Trump’s hand” and steered the game onto a path leaving the U.S. president with only two choices: yield to the territorial and political demands Russia has pursued since the start of the war, or engage in a severe and costly showdown with Moscow. Current indications show that, despite his loud rhetoric, Trump is leaning toward the first option.
Russia’s Position: Exploiting Time Pressure and Battlefield Advantage
Russia enters the Alaska talks with a clear advantage on the battlefield. Controlling around 20 percent of Ukrainian territory and making new advances along the Pokrovsk axis, Moscow is negotiating from strength, not weakness. It has also managed to exert psychological pressure on its opponent.
Fresh military gains, the use of infiltration tactics deep into Ukraine’s rear lines, and the continued attrition of Kyiv’s forces all serve to bolster Putin’s bargaining position. As a result, Moscow can use its battlefield successes—and the evident frustration in the U.S. and Europe over the war’s protraction—to push negotiations toward consolidating its territorial gains.
Putin is well aware that Trump, in the first year of his second term, faces a combination of domestic crises and international pressures, and urgently needs a quick win in the Ukraine file. This need is the key vulnerability that places Russia in a stronger position, giving it the leverage to “dictate” part of its terms.
U.S. Position: From Posturing to Facing Reality
Before the summit, Trump repeatedly threatened “very severe consequences” for Russia in case of no agreement. Yet a closer look at his stance shows these threats are more theatrical than actionable. His emphasis that peace may involve “territorial exchanges” is itself an implicit acceptance of part of Moscow’s demands. Strategically, this marks a pre-emptive defeat for the United States.
Trump has stated that some areas should be “retaken” while others should be “swapped.” Such a position essentially recognizes the border changes Russia has achieved on the ground. This approach—especially when coupled with Trump’s need to showcase a quick diplomatic victory—gives Russia even greater latitude to secure its position.
Ukraine’s Position: Fear of Being Sidelined
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is the most notable absentee from the Alaska talks—a meeting that could redefine the fate of Ukraine’s very existence. Although Trump and European leaders have stressed that Ukraine’s territorial issues must be settled with Kyiv’s consent, the reality is that the summit’s agenda and Trump’s comments on “border concessions” suggest Kyiv has been effectively pushed to the margins.
Zelensky is rightly concerned that talks held without his direct participation could produce decisions that breach Ukraine’s red lines. Kyiv’s sharp reaction to Trump’s remarks on territorial swaps underscores its fear that the Alaska summit may mark the beginning of the West’s gradual capitulation to Russia’s conditions.
Europe’s Position: Outward Unity, Hidden Divisions
Ahead of the Alaska summit, Europe has tried to project a united front with the United States. Statements from UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz have both stressed the priority of a ceasefire and maintaining a joint stance with Trump. Yet this unity is more tactical than strategic.
The reality is that European countries are facing economic and energy strains, as well as public discontent, over the war’s length. For them, ending the war—even at the cost of Ukrainian territorial concessions—is more appealing than prolonging a grinding conflict. This inclination frees Trump’s hand to move toward a deal that leaves Russia in the stronger position.
Russia: The Prime Candidate for Success
Considering the positions and circumstances of the four main actors, the picture is clear: Russia, by leveraging its battlefield advantage, exploiting Trump’s political needs, and capitalizing on internal Western divisions, has steered the talks toward an almost predetermined outcome.
In this game, despite his loud threats, Trump has effectively given the green light to part of Moscow’s territorial demands and seeks to present this retreat to the public as a “peace deal.” Europe, burdened by the costs of war, is ready to go along. Ukraine, though firmly opposed to any territorial concessions, lacks the tools to change the trajectory, given its battlefield position and absence from the talks.
From a strategic perspective, this situation can be read as an “early victory” for Russia and a diplomatic defeat for the U.S. and Europe. By reading Trump’s hand precisely, Putin has placed him between two hard choices and chosen a path where the cost of retreat for Washington and Brussels is lower than the cost of continued confrontation.
Although the complex political, military, and security factors of the Ukraine war make it difficult to predict the exact results of Friday’s summit, in such circumstances—even if the Alaska meeting ends without a formal agreement—the direction of the talks and the tone of Western leaders’ statements indicate that the trajectory is set in Moscow’s favor.
NOURNEWS