Russia and Ukraine Peace Talks Failed
Trump Left Embarrassed by Russia and Ukraine
As the world watches the upcoming summit between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska, the high stakes of the Ukraine conflict loom large.
Speculation swirls around potential "peace" initiatives, yet beneath the diplomatic veneer lies a deeply entrenched and seemingly irreconcilable divide: Russia’s unwavering demand for Ukraine’s full capitulation versus Ukraine’s steadfast refusal to cede an inch of its sovereign territory.
This fundamental clash of objectives, rooted in constitutional changes, historical narratives, and existential fears, renders a true peace agreement exceptionally difficult, if not impossible, on the terms currently on the table.
Trump is not Trumping Anymore
Trump HUMILIATED the nation - Peace Talks Collapse!
While Donald Trump's prior rhetoric suggested a desire for a swift, perhaps unilateral, "deal" to end the war, including speculation about a "land for peace" arrangement, his administration's stated approach to the peace talks in the lead-up to the Alaska summit with Vladimir Putin shows a more nuanced, and perhaps less "Trump-like," stance.
Clarified Negotiation Stance
The Trump administration has explicitly stated that the upcoming Alaska summit "is not a negotiation" regarding a peace settlement in Ukraine.
Instead, it is being described as a "listening exercise" for Trump to "develop a better understanding of how to end the war". This suggests a less immediate, deal-making posture.
Commitment to Ukrainian Involvement
A significant change is Trump's reported agreement that the US "will not pursue any agreements with Russia regarding a peace settlement in Ukraine without an immediate ceasefire and without Ukraine's formal involvement in peace negotiations".
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz confirmed that Trump "would not negotiate territorial issues with Putin".
French President Emmanuel Macron further noted that Trump agreed "that no one but Zelensky should negotiate issues concerning territory and that Trump will not be engaging in any 'schemes for territory swaps' during the summit".
This directly addresses Ukrainian fears of being "sold out" or being subjected to a "cruel auction" without their input.
Prioritising a Ceasefire
The immediate objective of the Alaska summit is now focused on convincing Putin to commit to an "immediate ceasefire" as a prerequisite for any broader peace agreement. This aligns with Ukraine's and European leaders' common principles for peace negotiations.
Call for Trilateral Meeting
White House Spokesperson Karoline Leavitt stated that any true peace negotiations would necessitate a trilateral meeting involving Russia, Ukraine, and the United States. This contrasts with the initial perception of bilateral talks between Trump and Putin dictating Ukraine's future.
Conditional Consequences for Russia
While still using strong language, Trump's warning of "very severe consequences" for Russia if Putin fails to engage in serious peace talks suggests a shift from potentially pressuring Ukraine into concessions towards holding Russia accountable for its continued intransigence.
Influence of Allies
The alignment of Trump's stated position with the common principles formulated by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and European leaders, who emphasized Ukraine's sovereignty and the need for its direct involvement, indicates that a unified allied front has influenced the US administration's public stance.
Despite these clarifications, Ukrainians still harbor skepticism about Trump's motivations, fearing he "doesn’t give a damn about Ukraine" and that his "deal" concerning natural resources might still imply Ukraine paying reparations. Russian state media, on the other hand, views Trump as potentially undermining the West and aiding Russia, even as they mock him.
In essence, Trump's current approach, as publicly outlined, appears less about a quick, unilateral imposition of a deal and more about facilitating a process that, at least formally, includes Ukrainian agency and prioritizes a ceasefire, likely reflecting the complex realities of the conflict and the unified diplomatic efforts of Ukraine and its European allies.
Russia’s Maximalist Demands
A Blueprint for Ukrainian Capitulation
Russia's stated war objectives, consistently outlined by President Vladimir Putin and reiterated by his officials, amount to nothing less than Ukraine's full military and political capitulation to Russia. These demands are comprehensive and uncompromising, leaving little room for genuine negotiation from Ukraine's perspective.
Russia's Demands are Extensive Territorial Claims
At the core of Russia's demands are extensive territorial claims. Russian President Vladimir Putin, in a speech on June 14, 2024, explicitly stated that Ukraine must withdraw from the entirety of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson oblasts, including areas that Russian forces do not currently occupy.
This insistence extends even to regions where Ukrainian forces maintain control, underscoring the maximalist nature of Moscow's aims. Currently, Russia occupies approximately 19% of Ukraine's territory, which includes Crimea and parts of the Donbas region seized prior to February 2022.
The demand for complete withdrawal from these four oblasts is non-negotiable for Moscow; Russian Foreign Ministry's Deputy Director Alexei Fadeev has unequivocally stated that Russia will not consider any territorial concessions ahead of international summits.
Russia insists on Ukraine's Demilitarization
Beyond territorial demands, Russia insists on Ukraine's demilitarization. This objective aims to dismantle Ukraine's military capabilities, effectively removing its capacity to resist future Russian aggression. Accompanying this is the call for "denazification," a term used by Russia to justify its invasion, which entails the removal of Ukraine’s current democratically elected government and a fundamental restructuring of Ukrainian society. This demand effectively seeks regime change in Kyiv.
Russia demands Future Ukrainian Alliance Neutrality
Finally, Russia demands future Ukrainian alliance neutrality, primarily aimed at precluding Ukraine's membership in NATO. Moscow has consistently maintained that peace is only achievable if Kyiv ceases military operations, withdraws its forces from what Russia considers "Russian territory" (including the former Ukrainian regions), ensures the rights of Russian-speaking residents, and becomes a neutral, nuclear-free state. These objectives were clearly laid out by Putin as preconditions for any "peace" negotiations and have not been adjusted by the Kremlin, even in anticipation of high-level international meetings.
Putin's Constitutional "Landlock"
Why Retreat is Impossible?
A crucial, often overlooked, factor underpinning Russia's uncompromising stance on territory is a self-imposed constitutional barrier erected by Vladimir Putin himself, which severely limits his flexibility to negotiate or concede any annexed land.
This strategic legal maneuver, coupled with the profound weight of Russian historical narratives, effectively "backs Putin into a corner" regarding these territories.
In 2020, Putin initiated significant changes to the Russian constitution, which included a provision expressly forbidding the Russian Federation from ceding any territory that has been officially declared part of the country.
While initially believed to apply mainly to Crimea (annexed in 2014), this constitutional amendment now crucially extends to the four Ukrainian provinces of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia, which Russia formally annexed in 2022.
The direct consequence of this legal integration is that Putin cannot withdraw from, or even negotiate about, these annexed provinces without directly undermining one of his newly established core principles.
From his perspective, the territorial integrity of all of Russia – including these recently incorporated regions – is now on the line. To give them back would be to alienate "Russian" land, a move constitutionally forbidden and politically perilous.
This constitutional lock-in is inextricably linked to Putin's political legitimacy and his carefully cultivated historical legacy. Russian historical narratives often valorize leaders who expand the empire's territory as successful, while those who lose land are invariably remembered as failures.
Putin has been a vocal critic of Mikhail Gorbachev, whom he implicitly blames for the collapse of the Soviet Union and the resultant loss of historical Russian territories. Returning the newly claimed Ukrainian territories would inevitably align Putin with such a "failure" narrative, potentially jeopardizing his grip on power and tarnishing his carefully constructed image as a strong, unifying leader who restored Russia's might.
Despite the legal formalization, the actual control over these annexed territories remains complex. The Wilson Center characterizes Russia's integration of these regions as a "Potemkin village," a facade of control, evidenced by the Ukrainian army's recapture of Kherson in November 2022, which was a significant defeat for Russia, yet Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov still asserted Kherson remained part of the Russian Federation.
This illustrates the disconnect between legal claim and ground reality, yet the constitutional commitment persists.
Ukraine’s Unyielding Resolve
No Peace Without Sovereignty
In stark contrast to Russia’s annexationist stance, Ukraine’s position on territorial integrity is unwavering and non-negotiable, deeply rooted in its constitution and fiercely defended by its people. Ukrainians express a profound mix of hopelessness, anger, and defiance at any peace proposals that suggest ceding their land, particularly those crafted without their direct involvement.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha have consistently and unequivocally stated that Ukraine will not make any territorial concessions to Russia.
This is not merely a political stance but a constitutional imperative: "The Constitution of Ukraine contains all the answers to your question.
Ukraine seeks a just, comprehensive, and lasting peace, based on the UN Charter and the norms of international law," Sybiha emphasized. Zelenskyy has publicly reaffirmed, "We cannot give up our territories. The Ukrainian Constitution forbids us to do so," even while acknowledging Ukraine's current lack of strength to regain all occupied territories.
The concept of a "land for peace" deal, where Ukraine would surrender territory in exchange for an end to fighting, is vehemently rejected by Kyiv.
Ukrainian leaders argue that such a move would effectively legitimize Russia's illegal annexation of sovereign Ukrainian territory by force.
Moreover, Zelenskyy has warned that surrendering crucial regions like the Donbas, as desired by Putin, would not bring lasting peace but would "deprive them of defensive lines and open the way for Moscow to conduct further offensives," serving as a "springboard for a future new offensive".
Many Ukrainians believe that even if such a deal were struck, "Vladimir Putin is a boomerang: he comes back until he gets what he wants," implying Russia would eventually return for the rest of Ukraine.
The sentiment among Ukrainian citizens is equally resolute. Iryna, a 26-year-old lawyer from Kyiv, described peace talks that exclude Ukraine as "laughable" and "a cruel auction" where Ukraine fears being "sold for someone else’s gain" and seen as "just an asset to sell and move on".
Yulia, a 43-year-old refugee from Mariupol, whose hometown suffered immense civilian casualties at the hands of Russian troops, expressed her horror: "Trump is [seemingly] proposing to give Putin my home town… Trump is proposing that the Russians get away with this monstrous crime… I will never agree to Russian murderers taking my city". The deep personal connection to the land and the memory of atrocities committed there solidify this rejection of concessions.
Hundreds of Ukrainians surveyed by The Guardian unequivocally stated that they would "reject any deal that involved concessions to Putin" and remain committed to fighting a neighbor they believe cannot be trusted.
As an anonymous 31-year-old woman from Crimea living in Kyiv powerfully articulated, "We as citizens are scared of peace on Trump’s and Putin’s terms, but we are not scared to keep fighting." She affirmed with certainty that Ukraine "will never agree to give up Crimea".
This fierce determination underscores the existential nature of the conflict for Ukrainians, who believe Ukraine "will have to keep fighting – deal or no deal".
Furthermore, Ukrainians largely reject external calls for elections during wartime.
They widely regard President Zelenskyy as a "100% legitimate leader" who "delivers the voice of the majority of Ukrainians," and emphasize that "according to our constitution, elections cannot be held under martial law".
Forcing elections under such conditions would benefit Russia by requiring Ukraine to lift martial law and withdraw soldiers from the frontlines, creating an ideal opportunity for a new offensive.
Trump’s Evolving Stance and the Alaska Summit
A "Listening Exercise"
The highly anticipated Trump-Putin summit in Alaska, initially shrouded in speculation about a quick "deal" including "land for peace," has seen the Trump administration clarify a more structured and, perhaps, less "Trump-like" approach.
Initially, Donald Trump's rhetoric had indeed fueled speculation about a potential "land for peace" deal, with Trump reportedly hoping to "get 'prime territory' back for Ukraine".
However, in the lead-up to the Alaska summit, the Trump administration has explicitly stated that the meeting "is not a negotiation" regarding a peace settlement in Ukraine. Instead, it is being framed as a "listening exercise" for Trump to "develop a better understanding of how to end the war".
A significant shift has been Trump's reported agreement that the US "will not pursue any agreements with Russia regarding a peace settlement in Ukraine without an immediate ceasefire and without Ukraine's formal involvement in peace negotiations".
This commitment to Ukrainian agency was confirmed by European leaders who met virtually with Trump and Zelenskyy. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz stated that Trump "reaffirmed that Trump would not negotiate territorial issues with Putin," and French President Emmanuel Macron noted Trump agreed "that no one but Zelensky should negotiate issues concerning territory and and that Trump will not be engaging in any 'schemes for territory swaps' during the summit".
This directly addresses deep-seated Ukrainian fears of being "sold out" or subjected to a "cruel auction" without their input.
The immediate objective of the Alaska summit is now focused on convincing Putin to commit to an "immediate ceasefire" as a prerequisite for any broader peace agreement.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and European leaders formulated common principles for peace negotiations, which were conveyed to Trump, including the necessity of a ceasefire prior to a broader peace agreement.
Furthermore, White House Spokesperson Karoline Leavitt stated that any true peace negotiations would necessitate a trilateral meeting involving Russia, Ukraine, and the United States, emphasizing that the Alaska summit itself is a bilateral discussion.
Trump himself reiterated his hope to organize such a trilateral meeting if the Alaska summit proves successful.
Trump has also warned of "very severe consequences" for Russia if Putin fails to engage in serious peace talks after the summit, though these consequences remain unspecified.
US Secretary of Treasury Scott Bessent suggested that the US "could increase or loosen sanctions against Russia depending on the outcome of the Alaska summit" and urged European leaders to prepare for harsher sanctions.
Despite these clarifications, Ukrainian skepticism persists. Oleksandra, a 30-year-old product marketer, voiced the common belief that "Trump doesn’t give a damn about Ukraine" and that his "so-called 'deal' about natural resources" makes it feel like Ukraine is "expected to pay reparations instead of Russia," which she found "insane". Some Ukrainians perceive Trump's focus as primarily on "portraying Trump as a successful deal-maker," desiring to be "the next Reagan".
The Geopolitical Chessboard
Propaganda, Power, and Perceptions
The upcoming Alaska summit is not just a meeting between two leaders; it's a carefully orchestrated geopolitical spectacle, particularly from Russia's perspective.
The Kremlin is actively using the summit to portray Russia as a "world power equal to the United States" and to posture Putin as an equal to Donald Trump.
Leading Russian negotiator Kirill Dmitriev, along with Russian State Duma Deputy Head Alexei Chepa and Crimea occupation head Sergei Aksyonov, have amplified comparisons between the Alaska summit and the 1945 Yalta Conference.
Dmitriev claimed that the Yalta conference "won World War II" and that Putin and Trump will similarly "prevent World War III". These comparisons are designed to suggest that Russia has "real influence on global processes" and to "conceal the power disparity between the United States and Russia".
However, these comparisons are inaccurate, as the Yalta Conference resulted in agreements about post-war Europe, whereas the Alaska summit, as US officials have stated, is not intended to produce any US-Russia agreements about ending the war in Ukraine.
Meanwhile, Russian state media provides a revealing window into Moscow's internal narrative and its perception of Trump.
On Russian state TV, hosts like Vladimir Solovyov and political scientist Dmitry Kulikov have openly mocked Donald Trump, describing his actions as "pure buffoonery" and even laughing at his economic policies and their perceived "disastrous turn of events" for America.
This mockery, however, masks a deeper, more strategic gleefulness: they celebrate Trump's perceived role in "destroying the trust" and dealing a "major blow to the system of capitalism," viewing him as unknowingly aiding Russia's geopolitical aims.
State media openly anticipates that Trump will "abandon Ukraine and permanently stop all aid," which they view as "the only kind of ceasefire Moscow is currently inclined to entertain". Despite this, Russian state media also warns its citizens not to anticipate the war ending anytime soon, indicating a long-term commitment to their objectives.
European leaders, while aligning with Ukraine's stance on sovereignty and the need for its involvement, also play a crucial role in managing the international response.
The unified front presented by Zelenskyy and European leaders, emphasizing Ukraine's sovereignty and the necessity of a ceasefire as a prerequisite for talks, has influenced the US administration's public position, pushing it towards a more inclusive and process-oriented approach, at least formally.
Battlefield Realities and the Unlikely Path to Peace
Beyond the diplomatic posturing, the brutal realities on the ground paint a picture of continued intense conflict, further complicating any immediate peace prospects. Russia’s military strategy ahead of potential talks remains aggressive, focused on securing and expanding its gains.
Russian forces are reportedly preparing for further offensive operations in priority sectors of the front line, including Zaporizhzhia, Pokrovsk, and Novopavlivka directions, potentially redeploying thousands of troops from other areas like Sumy.
Ukrainian Main Military Intelligence Directorate (GUR) Deputy Chief Major General Vadym Skibitskyi stated that Russia aims to seize key settlements like Kupyansk, Pokrovsk, Toretsk, and Chasiv Yar by the end of August or early September 2025. Russian tactics have evolved, focusing on destroying defensible positions and forcing civilian evacuations with persistent strikes before infiltrating settlements with small sabotage and reconnaissance groups.
Russia is also preparing to continue its long-range drone strike campaign against Ukrainian rear areas, intending to manufacture over 79,000 Shahed-type and decoy drones in 2025. These strikes, which have caused "significant civilian casualties and damage," aim to target Ukrainian energy infrastructure, logistics, and civilian facilities.
Adding to the strategic signaling, the upcoming Zapad-2025 joint Russian-Belarusian military exercises (September 12-16) will rehearse "planning for the employment of tactical nuclear weapons and Oreshnik ballistic missiles". This is viewed as part of the Kremlin's "nuclear saber-rattling campaign" and a "reflexive control campaign" aimed at pressuring the West to make decisions that disproportionately benefit Russia. While Ukrainian intelligence assesses that Belarus does not want direct involvement in the war, these exercises nonetheless serve to pin Ukrainian forces along the border and exert psychological pressure.
Given these ongoing military preparations and the deeply entrenched, non-negotiable objectives of both sides – Russia's demand for full capitulation and Ukraine's constitutional refusal to cede territory – a comprehensive peace agreement emerging from the Alaska summit seems highly unlikely. While a ceasefire, perhaps conditional, might be a more plausible immediate outcome, true lasting peace would require a fundamental shift in core positions that neither side, for their own internal and external reasons, appears willing or able to make.
Conclusion: A War of Attrition, a Battle for Sovereignty
The ongoing conflict in Ukraine is far more than a simple geopolitical dispute; it is a profound clash of fundamental principles and existential stakes.
Russia, bound by Putin's constitutional amendments and driven by a historical narrative of territorial expansion, finds itself in a "landlock" where conceding annexed territories is politically and legally impossible for the current regime.
For Russia, the conflict is about Ukraine's full capitulation, including its demilitarization, "denazification," and permanent neutrality.
Conversely, Ukraine, anchored by its constitution and the fierce resolve of its people, views any territorial concessions as a betrayal of its sovereignty, a formalization of war crimes, and an invitation for future aggression.
For Ukrainians, the fight is for their very existence, their right to self-determination, and the integrity of their nation. Their unwavering stance against "land for peace" deals, born from immense suffering and a deep understanding of Russia's historical track record, forms an unbreakable red line.
While the Trump administration has adopted a more nuanced approach to peace talks, emphasizing the need for an immediate ceasefire and Ukraine's direct involvement, the chasm between the two belligerents' core demands remains vast.
The Alaska summit, despite its high profile, is likely to serve more as a "listening exercise" and a platform for strategic signaling, with Russia leveraging it to project an image of global power while internally mocking its American counterpart.
Ultimately, the path to a genuine and lasting peace in Ukraine remains fraught with immense obstacles.
As long as Russia's objectives entail Ukraine's capitulation and Ukraine's constitutional and popular will forbids territorial concessions, the conflict is destined to continue as a grinding struggle for sovereignty.
The hope for a swift resolution is dimmed by these entrenched positions, leaving the Ukrainian people to bear the immense burden of a war fought not just on battlefields, but also in the intricate dance of international diplomacy and the unyielding defense of national identity.
Post a Comment