Why Zelensky should be at the table in Alaska

The upcoming summit between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin on August 15 in Anchorage, Alaska, is more than a meeting between world leaders. It is a diplomatic gamble for high stakes, one that seeks to deal with the ongoing war in Ukraine but also exposes the contradictory interests between the two sides.

For Trump, the summit is a continuation of his repeated promise to bring an end to the war in Ukraine. Throughout his campaign for president, Trump boasted that he could settle the war within 24 hours of being sworn in, a brash promise that now looks and sounds empty nearly eight months into his term.

His August 8 ceasefire deadline came and went with minimal movement on either side. His reaction was to declare this headline-grabbing summit with Putin. The concept, in Trump’s words, is to “feel out” the Russian president and coax him into a ceasefire.

But this strategy is confronted by the cold reality that Russia’s goals in Ukraine were never about negotiating a peace treaty. They are about territorial expansion and imposing a new sphere of influence, something that Putin is not going to give up without a major change in the prevailing geopolitical scenario, where Moscow has Beijing’s firm backing.

The meeting place is symbolic as well. Convened in Anchorage, Alaska, a state that has long historical roots with Russia (sold by Russia to the US in 1867), the summit unites the heads of two countries, which are only divided by the slim Bering Strait, at a location replete with Cold War-era military history. Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, where the talks will take place, is a strategic US base in Alaska’s defense posture.

This context emphasizes the strategic character of the summit. It is no coincidence that Trump and Putin are meeting at a place that defines the complicated dynamic between their two nations, competing in many ways, yet neighbours bound by shared histories and interests.

But there is something deeply disturbing in the structure of this summit. Trump and Putin will sit at the same table, while Ukraine itself is left out of the negotiations, much to the dismay of President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Trump, who has repeatedly expressed disappointment with Putin over the course of the war, has nonetheless indicated that he will push for territory to be returned to Ukraine, particularly in the wake of Russia’s occupation of Crimea and the eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk.

But Trump has also warned that the solution could involve “swapping” land, an approach that would no doubt outrage Ukraine and its allies in Europe. For Zelensky, this represents a non-starter: any deal that cedes Ukrainian territory to Russia is unacceptable.

Putin, however, stands firm in his requirements. He wants Ukraine to be neutral and outside of NATO, and for Russia to keep control of Crimea and portions of the Donbas.

For Moscow, the war is not merely about winning territory; it is a battle to keep NATO from encroaching further into what Russia envisions as its sphere of influence. The fight over Ukraine is representative of a larger geopolitical battle between the West and Russia, and Putin is not likely to relinquish these core demands.

The exclusion of Ukraine from the negotiations is sad but expected. Although Trump has intimated that Zelensky may be invited to the table at a later date, the implication is clear: the future of Ukraine will be determined by a select few world leaders without direct input from the people and government whose lives and sovereignty are most at stake.

Zelensky’s legitimate concern is that any deal not involving Ukraine proactively would be a deal imposed on the country, ignoring its people’s desire and territorial sovereignty.

So what does the summit ultimately represent for Ukraine? On one hand, of course, it holds out the chance for US-influenced diplomatic interaction with Russia. On the other hand, Ukraine risks its future being negotiated away in the interest of political expediency.

Trump’s approach of trying to browbeat Putin into a ceasefire, admirable in its intent to end the carnage, has the potential to make concessions that will not result in a durable, long-term peace.

Any deal compelling Ukraine to submit to Russian domination of occupied land would not only be a moral letdown but a geopolitical mistake with profound implications for the security of Europe and the global order.

In the broad context, the summit also highlights the failure of diplomacy in an environment where power politics reign supreme. The fact is that the conflict in Ukraine is not simply a local issue; it is a proxy war between global powers.

The US, NATO and Russia are engaged in a battle for control of Ukraine, leaving the country’s citizens in the miserable middle. Although Trump has good intentions in seeking an end to the war, however, any meaningful resolution requires a comprehensive approach that takes into account the legitimate interests and sovereignty of Ukraine while also addressing the security concerns of Russia.

All in all, the Trump-Putin summit in Anchorage will be a pivotal moment, but it is unlikely to yield any simple solution. The path to peace in Ukraine will require more than just a summit between two world leaders.

It will require a commitment to the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity and self-determination. Until these values are upheld, any “deal” reached will only serve to perpetuate the cycle of conflict and suffering that has already devastated Ukraine and its people.

Bilal Habib Qazi is an independent researcher based in Pakistan with a PhD in international relations from Jilin University in China. His research interests span geopolitics and strategic competition, foreign policy analysis, international security and regional order, as well as global governance and international organizations. He may be reached at bhqazi@gmail.com