European leaders express alarm as Zelensky warns against deals made without Ukrainian input

President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin will meet in Anchorage, Alaska on August 15, 2025, in a high-stakes diplomatic effort to end the Ukraine war. However, the bilateral nature of these talks has sparked international controversy, as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has been excluded from initial discussions. European allies warn that any peace deal negotiated without Ukraine’s participation could prove ineffective and dangerous.

Historic Summit in Strategic Location

The Alaska summit marks the first face-to-face meeting between Trump and Putin since their 2018 Helsinki encounter. Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage provides a secure, neutral venue with symbolic significance, given Alaska’s 1867 purchase from Russia and its proximity across the Bering Strait.

Trump announced the meeting on Truth Social on August 8, following productive talks between his special envoy Steve Witkoff and Putin in Moscow. The summit represents Trump’s most significant diplomatic gambit to fulfill his campaign promise of ending the Ukraine conflict “as soon as possible, preferably Day One.”

Security measures are extensive, with the military base offering privacy, controlled airspace, and isolation from potential protests. The White House schedule indicates Trump will depart Washington at 6:45 a.m. EDT, arriving in Anchorage for an 11:00 a.m. local time meeting, followed by a possible press conference.

Ukraine’s Exclusion Sparks Diplomatic Crisis

The most controversial aspect of the summit is Ukraine’s absence from initial discussions. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed that Putin requested the bilateral format, with Trump seeking to “gain a better understanding of how to end the war” before involving other parties.

Zelensky has repeatedly insisted that any peace talks must include Ukraine, arguing that decisions made without Kyiv would be “dead decisions” and ineffective. In a video address, he emphasized Ukraine’s constitutional stance against territorial concessions and readiness to engage in diplomacy only on equitable terms.

European leaders have rallied behind Ukraine’s position. A joint statement from UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron, and other European leaders asserted that “the path to peace in Ukraine cannot be decided without Ukraine.” They called for a ceasefire as a prerequisite for meaningful negotiations.

Territorial Concessions on the Table

Reports suggest Trump may propose territorial exchanges as part of a peace deal, with Russia potentially retaining parts of eastern Ukraine in exchange for concessions elsewhere. Putin has historically demanded Ukraine’s neutrality, demilitarization, and abandonment of NATO aspirations.

Trump has indicated willingness to consider “give and take” on territories while promising to consult Zelensky and NATO allies if progress is made. However, he estimated only a 25% chance of success, describing the meeting as a “listening exercise” to set the table for future negotiations.

The prospect of land swaps has alarmed European officials, who view Russia’s territorial gains as illegitimate and worry about setting dangerous precedents for international law. They fear Trump might prioritize a quick deal over long-term stability and Ukrainian sovereignty.

European Diplomatic Offensive

European leaders have engaged in intensive diplomacy to influence the summit outcome. A virtual meeting on August 13 between Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and key European figures aimed to coordinate positions and express concerns about Ukrainian exclusion.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz described the discussion as positive, rating it a “10” and noting that Trump understood the need for Ukraine’s involvement in follow-up meetings. French President Macron stated the call allowed for clarifying Trump’s intentions and expressing European expectations.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk highlighted the need to convince Trump not to trust Russia, warning that Putin could exploit the summit for his own gains. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas emphasized that any agreement must include Ukraine and the EU, calling for “ironclad security guarantees” to prevent future Russian invasions.

Military Developments Complicate Negotiations

Amid diplomatic efforts, Russian forces have intensified military operations in eastern Ukraine, capturing villages and launching over 90 drones and missiles in a single night. Zelensky described this escalation as preparation for new offensives rather than genuine peace overtures.

These battlefield developments could strengthen Putin’s negotiating position, allowing him to demand concessions from a position of perceived strength. Ukrainian forces continue to defend against these attacks while maintaining their rejection of territorial concessions.

The military situation underscores the urgency of diplomatic efforts while highlighting the challenges of negotiating from positions of ongoing conflict. Both sides appear to be positioning for maximum leverage in potential talks.

International Stakes and Consequences

The summit’s outcome could reshape European security architecture and international law. If Trump agrees to territorial concessions without Ukrainian involvement, it might legitimize Russia’s use of force to change borders and encourage similar actions elsewhere.

Conversely, a successful ceasefire with strong security guarantees could stabilize the region and provide a foundation for broader peace negotiations. However, European leaders remain skeptical of Putin’s intentions and Trump’s negotiating approach.

The international community watches closely, with some warning that excluding Ukraine could undermine long-term stability and create conditions for future conflicts. The precedent set in Alaska may influence how territorial disputes are resolved globally.

The Trump-Putin Alaska summit represents a critical juncture in the Ukraine conflict, with potential to either advance peace or exacerbate tensions. Ukraine’s exclusion from initial talks raises fundamental questions about sovereignty, self-determination, and the principles underlying international order.

European allies’ unified opposition to deals made without Ukrainian participation reflects broader concerns about democratic values and the rule of law. As the summit approaches, the international community must ensure that any agreement respects Ukraine’s rights and contributes to lasting peace rather than temporary expedience.

The stakes extend far beyond Ukraine’s borders, encompassing the future of international law, alliance relationships, and the balance between great power politics and smaller nations’ rights. History will judge whether this diplomatic gamble strengthens or weakens the foundations of global stability.