The much-anticipated summit between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin concluded in Anchorage, Alaska, without producing a ceasefire or clear agreement on ending the ongoing war in Ukraine.
The leaders’ face-to-face meeting on August 15, 2025, marked their first in-person encounter since 2019 but notably excluded Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, raising questions about the effectiveness and inclusivity of the diplomatic effort.
Mixed signals: Contradictory accounts from Trump and Putin
Following nearly three hours of closed-door discussions, Trump and Putin addressed the media but declined to share substantive details. Putin suggested some progress, saying the discussions would “pave the path toward peace in Ukraine,” implying an agreement had been reached.
Trump, however, struck a more cautious tone, emphasizing, “There’s no deal until there’s a deal.” In a later television interview, Trump declined to publicly elaborate on points of disagreement, stating he hoped efforts could continue and any settlement would ultimately require Ukrainian consent.
Zelenskyy excluded, next steps unclear
President Zelenskyy, not invited to the summit, had earlier cautioned that any decisions made without Ukrainian participation would lack legitimacy and practical value. After the summit, Trump stated his intention to call both Zelenskyy and NATO leaders soon to brief them on the meeting.
He further disclosed plans for a future discussion between himself, Putin, and Zelenskyy to work toward a potential ceasefire. Trump emphasized, “It is really up to President Zelenskyy to get it done,” while suggesting that key European nations should also be more actively involved in the peace process.
Talks of land swaps and security guarantees
In his Fox News interview, Trump hinted that among the topics discussed were possible land swaps and security guarantees for Ukraine that would fall short of full NATO membership.
Host Sean Hannity speculated on an outcome in which Russia might receive more territory, while Ukraine would obtain certain non-NATO security commitments. Trump said, “I think those are points that we negotiated, and those are points that we largely have agreed on. Actually, I think we’ve agreed on a lot.”
The backstory: Diplomatic misunderstandings
The summit’s rapid organization reportedly stemmed from a miscommunication involving Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff. According to European and former US officials, Witkoff may have misunderstood Russia’s conditions following his meetings with Putin, mistakenly conveying optimism about a Russian “peaceful withdrawal” from certain Ukrainian regions.
In reality, Putin was demanding Ukrainian withdrawal from those areas. This confusion, felt among European allies and Ukraine, may have spurred the urgent Alaska meeting in hopes of clarifying positions.
Washington’s political divide: Reactions at home
Reactions in Washington were sharply divided along partisan lines. Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska expressed “cautious optimism,” urging that Ukraine be included in future discussions and stating, “Ukraine must be part of any negotiated settlement and must freely agree to its terms.”
Senator Katie Britt of Alabama defended Trump’s approach, calling the summit “a step in the right direction” and expressing confidence in Trump’s leadership to end the conflict.
By contrast, Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was sharply critical, accusing Trump of having “rolled out the red carpet for authoritarian thug Vladimir Putin.” Schumer argued the summit “handed Putin legitimacy, a global stage, zero accountability, and got nothing in return,” expressing concern the talks amounted to little more than political theater.
No answers as leaders depart
Neither Trump nor Putin took reporters’ questions after the joint press appearance. Trump boarded Air Force One without commenting further, while Putin departed Alaska soon after. The absence of press interactions left many details of the talks shrouded in mystery.
Critics say US role diminished
Prominent critics such as Alexander Vindman, who played a central role in Trump’s first impeachment proceedings, argued that Trump’s summit made the US appear “weak and inconsequential,” diminishing both the presidency and America’s global influence.
Vindman’s sharp rebuke reflected concerns among many US and European officials about the potential sidelining of Ukraine and the West in efforts to end the war.
