Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
“President Donald Trump said he will meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin next Friday in Alaska to discuss ending the war in Ukraine, a potential breakthrough after weeks of expressing frustration that more was not being done to quell the fighting.” AP News
Many on both sides urge Trump to demand a ceasefire:
“At the summit, Trump should proceed carefully and methodically. The starting position of Friday’s discussions will be Putin’s demand that Ukraine withdraw unilaterally from what it still holds of Donetsk in exchange for a ceasefire. Trump can calmly counter with a proposal put forth by European allies: that Russia first agrees to a ceasefire as a precondition for any reciprocal trading of territories…
“Security guarantees will also have to be part of the discussion… It is best [to] push the Russians to accept that Ukraine will become a permanent garrison state on Europe’s eastern flank. Like a metaphoric porcupine, Ukraine should be armed to the teeth with Western weapons and capable of holding back the full force of any future Russian aggression. Realistically, it’s a question of when, not if, Russia threatens to attack again.”
Editorial Board, Washington Post
“Putin’s strategy at this point is crystal clear: He knows a frustrated Trump was about to bring an economic hammer down on Russia. He wants to prevent that by drawing Trump into an interminable negotiating process — much like the endless Iran negotiations Trump rejected — calculating that as long as that goes on, Trump will be disinclined to escalate with harsher sanctions or significantly stepped-up assistance to Ukraine…
“To avoid this trap, all Trump has to do is hold firm to his stated position that both sides need to agree to a ceasefire now. Once a ceasefire is in place, there will be time to talk about exchanging territory… If Putin refuses, expect Trump to walk away, pull the trigger on secondary tariffs on Russia’s oil sector and increase arms sales to Ukraine (paid for by NATO allies)… It would not be the first time he pulled the plug on negotiations with an unserious adversary.”
Marc A. Thiessen, Washington Post
Other opinions below.
“[Putin’s] first priority was to keep Volodymyr Zelenskiy out of the room, rather than have the three-way meeting that Trump — to his credit — was suggesting. The Ukrainian leader’s presence would require actual negotiation, making Russian disinterest hard to hide. By insisting on a bilateral sit down with Trump, Putin can seek to propose terms this US administration might accept, but he knows Ukraine can’t. That would once again make Zelenskiy the person Trump blames for standing in the way of peace…
“The second goal was to find a location for the meeting that would demonstrate, both to Russians and to leaders around the world, that Putin is no longer a pariah avoiding travel for fear of arrest under a war crimes warrant…
“A summit in Alaska — a US state that once belonged to the Russian Empire — would send a strong signal of Putin’s rehabilitation, while also pointing to the Kremlin’s long historical reach as a great power. Trump’s invitation alone is a win for the Kremlin.”
Marc Champion, Bloomberg
“The US could have extracted something meaningful in return – the 30-day unconditional ceasefire that was proposed by the US and its European allies in May, for instance – to demonstrate that Putin was serious about negotiating peace. But instead, Putin has got what he wanted despite stepping up his bombardment of Ukrainian cities in recent months and continually ignoring Trump’s previous deadlines and forlorn appeals for him to halt his attacks…
“It would be one thing if the US was clearly communicating to Putin that the alternative to peace would be a massive increase in US military aid to Ukraine and more sanctions on Russia and its biggest trading partners. But Putin knows that Trump has failed to follow through on his previous threats, and that he is desperate for a deal to burnish his own legacy and realise his long-held ambition of winning the Nobel Peace Prize.”
Katie Stallard, New Statesman
“The U.S. should reject any attempt by Russia to extend its gains. Nor, in the absence of Ukraine’s agreement, should it extend de jure recognition to any of the territorial gains made by Russia at Ukraine’s expense…
“For its part, Ukraine must, however reluctantly and unfairly, accept that the existing front line will, absent fresh hostilities, be the de facto border with Russia. The armistice that ended the Korean War was signed in 1953. If any Russo-Ukrainian armistice lasts as long, Ukraine will flourish.”
The Editors, National Review
“It’s true that Trump and Vance do not want to risk a direct military conflict with Russia or indefinitely fund Ukraine’s war efforts… At the same time, it is clear that Trump genuinely wants Russia to stop its ongoing aggression against Ukraine. He did not simply come in and cut Ukraine off, as his hardest-core noninterventionist supporters would have preferred. He has even been willing to re-up armaments to Ukraine as Russia kept up its military offensive…
“The promise of ending Russian military casualties, which Trump has regularly raised in the past, doesn’t appear to be sufficient for [Putin]. As long as Putin believes he can do better on the battlefield than the bargaining table, peace will be difficult to achieve. And as long as he sees saving face in Ukraine as essential to his regime, it will be difficult for Western moral suasion to prevail… We are still much closer to the beginning than to the end.”
W. James Antle III, American Conservative
Some argue, “President Trump should also remember the U.S. has few interests at stake in Ukraine. Endless U.S. support—military, diplomatic, or otherwise—to the ongoing conflict is unsustainable and may actually disincentivize key actors from ending the war. President Trump should not be afraid to walk away from the war if it becomes clear that even his best efforts cannot broker an enduring settlement.”
Dan Caldwell and Jennifer Kavanagh, American Conservative
