Can Trump’s Initiative Really Resolve the Russia-Ukraine Conflict?

New Delhi, Aug 31 (NationPress) The pivotal summit involving US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, held at the largest US military base in Alaska on August 15, concluded positively, despite no immediate ceasefire being declared.

In a joint press conference, the leaders emphasized the productivity of their meeting but refrained from taking questions. Putin referred to the summit as ‘a starting point’ for resolving the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

Putin acknowledged Trump’s genuine intent, pointing out that this initiative would facilitate a ‘business-like and pragmatic’ relationship between Russia and the US.

Trump candidly stated that ‘both sides made great progress’ and noted that ‘a number of points had been agreed upon’. He humorously added, ‘there is no deal unless there is a deal’. The Alaskan meeting seemed characterized by a personal rapport between the two leaders, highlighted by Putin’s observation that ‘there would have been no Russia-Ukraine war if Trump had been the US President’.

Following the summit, Trump announced plans for a meeting with the Ukrainian President and his NATO allies to advance the agenda established in Alaska. The leaders discussed a potential follow-up meeting, with Putin suggesting ‘maybe in Moscow’, to which Trump humorously replied that ‘he might get a little heat on that one’. Both expressed a belief that the Biden Administration had unjustly targeted Russia regarding allegations of interference in the 2020 US Presidential election.

Importantly, Putin conceded that Ukraine should receive security guarantees, a vital element for Ukraine's President. Putin expressed hope that Ukraine's European allies would not hinder these efforts, especially in light of President Zelensky's insistence on NATO membership for Ukraine, which Putin opposed. Despite this, Putin appeared confident that Trump understood Russia's ‘national interests’. Trump declared that the Alaska summit had reached an understanding on ‘many, many points’, although they had yet to finalize a couple of major issues. The summit delved into numerous details and assessed expectations from both sides.

Trump advised Zelensky to ‘make a deal’, implying that Ukraine might need to make concessions. He mentioned that European nations should also become more involved in promoting peace, aligning with this perspective. Expressing optimism about the Alaska summit's results, Trump offered to join a future meeting between Putin and Zelensky if desired.

Trump's empathy towards Putin suggests he might pressure Zelensky to agree to a ceasefire and engage in peace talks. Notably, during Zelensky's first meeting with Trump and US Vice President JD Vance at the White House on Feb. 28, 2025, a discordant exchange occurred, with Zelensky seemingly coerced into conceding to a ceasefire while insisting on ‘security guarantees’ for Ukraine.

The anticipated meeting between Trump and Zelensky, attended by top European leaders, took place at the White House on August 18. Attendees included the British Prime Minister, the President of France, Italy’s PM, the German Chancellor, and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte.

Trump struck a cooperative tone, expressing US willingness to support European efforts in ‘policing’ any peace deal for Ukraine. He dismissed the idea of Ukraine joining NATO but affirmed that the US would aid European nations in ensuring Ukraine's protection. Zelensky expressed gratitude to Trump for ‘backing security guarantees for Ukraine’. Trump claimed that Putin might be ‘open to accepting security guarantees’, and his Special Envoy Steve Witcoff clarified that Moscow could be amenable to ‘NATO-style protection for Ukraine’. NATO Secretary General conveyed optimism, stating that ‘if we play this right, we could end the fight in Ukraine’.

During the White House meeting, French President Emmanuel Macron emphasized that security guarantees for Ukraine were essential for safeguarding the ‘security of European countries as a whole’. NATO members harbored concerns regarding Putin’s future intentions while remaining uncertain if Trump fully grasped their worries. Although a significant condition regarding Ukraine's security guarantees was addressed, several ‘territorial’ issues and the exchange of detained civilians remained unresolved, highlighting the need to define the format of a peace pact. Recent developments suggest both Russia and Ukraine are eager to exit this exhausting conflict; however, Ukraine appears under greater pressure after Trump altered the Biden Administration’s support for Ukraine against Russia.

Macron aptly noted that the most crucial outcome from the White House talks was the ‘US's willingness to engage in the content of security guarantees for Ukraine’. Zelensky would likely appreciate Macron’s position, advocating for a direct dialogue between Zelensky and Putin before a trilateral meeting involving Trump.

Zelensky seeks to engage with Putin on equal terms, feeling confident in his ability to navigate discussions with the Russian President, as evidenced by his firm stance during his initial Oval Office encounter with Trump. However, Putin seemed resistant to the notion of a direct meeting with Zelensky. Notably, both Macron and German Chancellor Frederik Merz insisted that a ‘truce’ or ‘ceasefire’ must precede any talks between Russia and Ukraine, with Macron stating, ‘we cannot hold discussions under bombs’, while Merz added that ‘real negotiations can only occur when weapons are silent’.

While European leaders at the August 18 meeting echoed the Ukrainian President's approach, Trump expressed an intriguing sentiment that ‘he did not pursue ceasefires’ in other conflicts he claimed to have resolved, aligning more closely with Putin, whose aide Kirill Dmitriev described the White House meeting as an ‘important day of diplomacy’ and underscored the focus on ‘lasting peace, not a temporary ceasefire’.

Trump's personal drive to steer the three-and-a-half-year-old Ukraine-Russia conflict towards a peaceful resolution is commendable; he even called Putin during the August 18 meeting to encourage acceptance of ‘security guarantees’ for Ukraine.

A genuine effort is underway at the highest level of US leadership to seek a peaceful resolution to a significant military confrontation that many viewed as potentially igniting a third world war during the Biden administration. While a ‘ceasefire’ may not emerge without a clear ‘peace package’, both sides could demonstrate a degree of ‘self-restraint’. Although Putin appears steadfast in maintaining Russian influence over Donbas, a strategic package offering some territorial adjustments could be negotiated. This may include promises for Ukraine's reconstruction, the exchange of civilians captured on both sides, adjustments concerning Crimea, the deployment of a peacekeeping force in the border region, and a more conciliatory role from the EU, excluding NATO.

Preserving a democratic regime in Ukraine through the principle of ‘one man, one vote’ could alleviate Putin’s concerns regarding the treatment of the Russian-speaking population under Zelensky's leadership.

Providing a certain level of federal autonomy to various Ukrainian regions might also facilitate this process. While Putin may reject calls for the withdrawal of Russian troops to the other side of the border, as he seeks to maintain a presence in the occupied territories, implementing the aforementioned measures could soften his inflexible stance.

Meanwhile, sporadic ‘tit for tat’ attacks between Ukraine and Russia have occurred, reflecting both sides' desire to avoid any appearance of ‘weakness’ while the US President lays the groundwork for peace. A drone strike by Russia on Kyiv on August 28, resulting in several casualties, served as a stark reminder to the Ukrainian President not to overestimate his position.

While Trump may adopt a firm approach with Zelensky, Putin must also demonstrate genuine interest in peace. The significant progress achieved so far stems from Trump’s clear message that the US does not endorse Ukraine's NATO membership and a noticeable reduction in anti-Russian rhetoric from European nations. The latter remain wary of Putin, who justifiably harbors suspicions towards NATO powers. Crafting a mutually acceptable peace proposal for Russia and Ukraine will not be an easy task.

All attention will be focused on a potential bilateral or trilateral meeting among the leaders of the warring nations, facilitated by the US President. Trump is also motivated by his personal agenda to garner recognition as ‘the world's peace-maker’.

India, for its part, has sought to ensure that tariff issues linked to its purchase of Russian oil do not negatively impact the prospects for a peaceful resolution to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. India is rightly emphasizing the Indo-Russian relationship as a demonstration of its national sovereignty, striving for bilateral friendships with all nations. The true challenge for peace advocates lies in establishing a level playing field for both Ukraine and Russia, ensuring that neither side claims ‘total victory’.

(The writer is a former Director of the Intelligence Bureau)