Trump announced that negotiations between the US, Russia, and Ukraine could be scheduled as early as Monday, following Trump’s meeting with Zelensky in Washington. Thus, the US president has abandoned his demand for an immediate ceasefire without preconditions. Previously, this had been the united position of Ukraine and all its allies. Now there is a split in the Western camp – the largest party to the negotiations has changed its position, proposing to agree on a full-fledged ceasefire during the course of military operations.
As I expected, the parties in Alaska were unable to reach agreement on the main issue. It is possible to pursue benefits and reach agreement on any issues in Russian-American relations, from economic cooperation to strategic treaties. But in a situation where Kiev is demonstrating its assertiveness (with the friendly support of the European Union), Trump remains a hostage to someone else’s will, strange as it may seem.
It is Zelensky who has the right to agree to Putin’s or Trump’s proposals. He himself is very dependent on public opinion. Ukrainians, tired of military action, are also divided on the issue of readiness for territorial losses: young people who do not want to go to the front and their relatives on the one hand, and citizens who are exempt from the hardships of mobilization and are willing to risk the health of others on the other.
Gradually, the proportion of Ukrainians willing to cede territory is increasing, but very slowly. To a large extent, this is the result of more than three years of consolidating propaganda during the war. If the ruling circles in Kyiv decide to make concessions, they will have to not only explain the reasons to the people, but also mobilize their media machine.
The change in Trump’s position on the issue (an immediate and unconditional ceasefire along the front line), which Zelensky’s adviser Podolyak put at the top of the agenda on the eve of the summit, indicates that in fact the agreement on Ukraine was not only discussed, but also agreed upon in certain important points. Now it is no longer possible to say that the talks in Alaska “ended in nothing.”
Thus, Anchorage could become Reykjavik. In the Icelandic capital in 1986, Gorbachev and Reagan also failed to achieve definitive results on the fly. But the foundation laid there served as the basis for subsequent success.
This is a fascinating analysis. The comparison to Reykjavik is particularly insightful. It does feel like the public posturing often obscures the real groundwork being laid behind the scenes. The shift in the US position is a major development, and it puts Kyiv in an incredibly difficult spot, having to balance external pressure with a deeply divided domestic populace. The real challenge now is whether any potential agreement can be sold to the Ukrainian public after years of unwavering resistance.
As a woman I feel hopeful that high level talks can lead to real progress; diplomacy needs patience and courage and ordinary people deserve lasting peace
I feel uneasy — this might be a turning point, but the cost will be heavy 😔🕊️🤝🇺🇦
True progress often emerges not from immediate resolution but from the patient laying of groundwork amid deep divisions; history teaches us that seedlings of peace require time to take root before flourishing into transformative change.