Trump–Putin talks draw historical parallels, doubts over peace prospects Interview by The Conversation

A last-minute summit between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin is scheduled for August 15, 2025, in Alaska, aiming to discuss a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is not expected to attend unless there is an unexpected change — a decision that some observers say mirrors past diplomatic failures.

Donald Heflin, a veteran US diplomat now at Tufts University’s Fletcher School, outlined in an interview with the Conversation why the rushed nature of the meeting makes a durable peace deal unlikely. He explained that wars generally end in one of three ways:

“One is that both sides get exhausted and decide to make peace. The second, which is more common: One side gets exhausted and raises its hand and says, ‘Yeah, we’re ready to come to the peace table.’ And then the third is – we’ve seen this happen in the Mideast – outside forces like the U.S. or Europe come in and say, ‘That’s enough. We’re imposing our will from the outside. You guys stop this.’”

In the Russia–Ukraine war, Heflin said, “neither side has shown a real willingness to go to the conference table and give up territory.” Trump’s administration is attempting that third route — imposing peace from outside.

But Russia, he cautioned, is “maybe a former superpower, but a power, and it’s got nuclear arms and it’s got a big army… They’re nearly a peer. So can you really impose your will on them and get them to come to the conference table in seriousness if they don’t want to? I kind of doubt it.”

Historical echoes: Munich, 1938

Heflin pointed to parallels with the Munich Conference of 1938, where Britain negotiated with Nazi Germany without Czechoslovakia’s participation. Then, Germany claimed ethnic Germans in Czechoslovakia were mistreated and demanded their territory. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain struck a deal granting the German parts of Czechoslovakia to Hitler, in exchange for supposed finality and light security guarantees.

“Czechoslovakia wasn’t there. This was a peace imposed on them,” Heflin noted. “Sure enough, within a year or two, Germany was saying, ‘No, we want all of Czechoslovakia. And, P.S., we want Poland.’ And thus World War II started.”

While he cautioned against direct comparisons between Putin and Hitler — “Those guys started World War II and perpetrated the Holocaust… It’s hard to compare anything to that” — Heflin stressed the similarities in process: Ukraine, like Czechoslovakia, is absent from the table, and the West’s record on honouring security guarantees is weak.

1994 promises, broken twice

Ukraine was promised security in 1994 when it surrendered its nuclear arsenal under the Budapest Memorandum.

“We told them, ‘If you’re going to be brave and give up your nuclear weapons, we’ll make sure you’re never invaded.’ And they’ve been invaded twice since then, in 2014 and 2022. The West didn’t step up,” Heflin said.

Given this history, he sees “low possibilities for a lasting peace coming out of this summit.”

Diplomatic expertise in short supply

Heflin stressed that successful negotiations depend on political leaders setting goals and career diplomats, civil servants, and military experts working out the details — maps, figures, and issue lists — through prior engagement with counterparts. That groundwork is absent this time.

Since Trump’s inauguration, the senior ranks of civil servants and foreign service officers have been gutted, many mid-level professionals have left, and their replacements lack deep expertise. While some appointees, such as Marco Rubio, “know what they’re doing in terms of national security,” Heflin says many do not.

“The U.S. national security establishment is increasingly being run by the B team – at best,” he remarked.

Why rushing matters

High-level summits between leaders of major powers are rarely arranged on just days’ notice unless triggered by a genuine crisis. Normally, weeks of preparation would allow all sides to exchange documents, narrow disputes, and produce aligned briefing materials. Such steps make the talks “very professional” and increase the chances of enforceable outcomes.

“None of that’s going to happen in Alaska,” Heflin said. “It’s going to be two political leaders meeting and deciding things, often driven by political considerations, but without any real idea of whether they can really be implemented or how they could be implemented.”

The enforcement problem

Even if the summit yields an agreement, enforcing it could prove impossible. Putin is unlikely to give up Crimea or pre-war occupied eastern Ukraine, and perhaps only parts gained since 2022. From Kyiv’s perspective, ceding any territory — Crimea included — is unacceptable.

This deadlock, combined with the failure of past guarantees, means the Alaska meeting is unlikely to secure genuine peace, he added. 

Diplomatic community’s verdict

“People who understand the process of diplomacy think that this is very amateurish and is unlikely to yield real results that are enforceable,” Heflin concluded. “It will yield some kind of statement and a photo of Trump and Putin shaking hands. There will be people who believe that this will solve the problem. It won’t.”

By Sabina Mammadli