Alaska summit: History’s shadows and Ukraine’s high stakes

If history is a stern teacher, then Ukraine has reason to dread the upcoming Alaska summit between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. The Financial Times warns that this meeting, set for August 15, could echo the diplomatic compromises of Munich or Yalta—moments when great powers carved up territories with lasting consequences. For Kyiv, the fear is not a military defeat, but a political concession: that Trump might trade away land Russia could not seize on the battlefield.

Over the past seven months, Trump has pursued what he promised would be an “instant deal” to end the war in Ukraine. Repeated attempts to secure a ceasefire from Putin have failed, prompting the US president to threaten economic warfare on Russia last month. Putin’s agreement to meet in Alaska appears to be a response to this pressure, but crucially, he has not yet agreed to halt hostilities. In effect, the Russian leader arrives at the negotiating table with leverage intact.

The article draws a direct historical line to Trump’s 2018 Helsinki meeting with Putin, where the US president appeared to side with Moscow over his own intelligence agencies on the issue of election interference. That episode, and the backlash it generated, curtailed Trump’s room for maneuver.

Today, however, Trump’s domestic position is stronger. His current Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, promotes narratives that align more closely with Trump’s political needs, deflecting attention from controversial topics rather than challenging him.

Putin, meanwhile, has tested Trump’s patience—intensifying attacks on Ukraine shortly after each US request for a ceasefire. This bruising of Trump’s ego has prompted tactical shifts, such as lifting a Pentagon ban on arms sales to Ukraine.

Still, the FT notes two critical advantages in Putin’s favour. First, Trump’s eagerness for a deal may outweigh his willingness to hold firm. Russia has absorbed immense battlefield losses but retains the belief that time benefits its position. Second, Trump’s top Russia envoy, Steve Witkoff, lacks detailed knowledge of Ukraine’s territories — an opening Putin could exploit much as Stalin did with less ill-informed counterparts at Yalta.

The articles frames the Alaska summit as a moment laden with historical parallels and modern dangers. If Trump trades away Ukrainian territory in the name of peace, it could trigger political upheaval in Kyiv and cement a strategic win for Moscow. For Putin, the stakes are enormous—but for Ukraine, they are existential.

By Sabina Mammadli