Analysis/ What to expect from Friday's Trump-Putin meeting

2025-08-13 19:50:00, Kosova & Bota CNA

As US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin prepare to meet this Friday at a summit in Alaska, questions are arising about the agenda and the potential implications for the war in Ukraine.

With Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky currently expected to be absent from the talks, concerns have arisen about the scope of any potential agreement, the role of Ukraine's allies, and the sustainability of any negotiated solution.

American experts give their opinion on the political, military and diplomatic factors surrounding the meeting.

Peace agreements rarely end wars, making it important to set expectations for peace negotiations in Ukraine. Only 16% of interstate wars since World War II ended in a peace settlement. Approximately 21% ended with a decisive military victory by one side, while another 30% ended with a ceasefire after the warring parties faced a military stalemate but failed to reach a formal settlement.

In addition, peace agreements usually fail. Over a third of peace agreements between 1975 and 2018 failed for a variety of reasons: Domestic support for the agreement eroded, one or more parties violated the terms of the agreement, or policymakers changed their minds for strategic or other reasons.

For peace agreements to end wars and last, warring parties must generally view their prospects for military success as low; there must be significant external pressure for an agreement, including positive incentives, security guarantees from third parties, and penalties for non-compliance with an agreement; and there must be domestic support for an agreement from critical domestic constituencies.

A better understanding of how wars end has several implications for the prospects for a peace agreement in Ukraine.

First, Ukraine needs to be heavily armed by Europe and ideally by the United States —to convince Russian leaders that their prospects for military success are low and to deter a future Russian invasion. Ukraine needs air and missile defense capabilities, medium- and long-range munitions, advanced fighter jets, intelligence, drone components, and other materials that could be used to draw advancing Russian forces away if Moscow avoids a deal.

Second, there must be credible penalties—especially from the United States— if Russia backs out of an agreement, and positive incentives if Russia keeps its word. For example, increased sanctions on Russia’s energy sector are likely to cause significant pain. Energy sanctions could be combined with sanctions on other Russian exports, such as minerals, metals, agricultural commodities, and fertilizers. After all, Russia is struggling with high inflation, labor shortages, and limited paths to economic growth.

Ultimately, the central question for Trump, Ukraine, and Putin is the same: the theory of victory . For Trump, why assume that any deal would be anything other than a pause between two Russian invasions? For Zelensky, if he is unwilling to give up territory — even temporarily — how does he sustain the war toward anything resembling victory? For Putin, how can marginal territorial gains — bought with over a million casualties, NATO expansion, a dangerously violent group of returning veterans, and a badly damaged economy — look like victory? /CNA