Trump–Putin Alaska talks may pile pressure on Ukraine, Georgian military analyst Aladashvili

US President Donald Trump’s planned meeting with Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin in Alaska could see Washington push Kyiv toward concessions it will not accept, Irakli Aladashvili, editor-in-chief of Arsenal military magazine, has told Front News. He warned that Moscow was using the talks to gain time and strengthen its position on the battlefield.

Q. The main topic of the upcoming meeting between Trump and Putin in Alaska is reportedly a “territorial exchange” between Ukraine and Russia. How realistic is such a scenario, especially given that Russia has already claimed four Ukrainian regions - Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia - while President Volodymyr Zelenskyy remains opposed to ceding territory? What are your expectations from this meeting? 

A. I do not expect Putin to make any significant concessions. He is still demanding conditions from Ukraine that are essentially tantamount to capitulation. One meeting will not decide the fate of the war. Trump has his own motives - he wants to present himself as the man who can establish peace, and we know he is interested in receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. It is expected that Trump might halt all military aid to Ukraine. At present, he is no longer supplying weapons for free - Ukraine has to purchase them - and it’s possible he could refuse even to sell them. This could also include cutting off intelligence support, when US intelligence warns Ukraine of incoming threats so civilians can take shelter. That would mean heavy pressure on Ukraine, even while Trump claims to be “ending the war” - a war Ukraine may not agree to end on such terms. 

Q. If Putin will not alter his demands, why agree to meet Trump at all? 

A. Putin’s main goal now is to gain time - to prolong the situation until he can negotiate from a stronger position. Being invited to America for a face-to-face meeting with Trump is significant for Russia, especially given Putin’s current political isolation. It allows him to project the image: “I am for peace, but Ukraine refuses it.” This is a typical Putin maneuver. Trump, for his part, is not naive; he too wants to show both domestic and international audiences that he is taking steps toward ending the war. 

Q. Western media suggest Zelenskyy is “quietly considering” the loss of some territories in exchange for strong security guarantees, potentially including NATO membership. How realistic is NATO membership in the event of a frozen conflict, and what guarantees could be acceptable to Ukraine? 

A. Unfortunately, Ukraine’s NATO membership has long been unrealistic. We remember the 2008 Bucharest summit, when both Georgia and Ukraine were promised membership - promises that proved hollow. As for other guarantees, I doubt Trump would offer any. First, he may simply refuse; second, even if he did, he could not deliver. Neither the US nor Europe wants a direct war with Russia. Any binding security guarantee to Ukraine would mean exactly that - direct involvement - so it is off the table. The same goes for Europe deploying peacekeepers or placing units along the front line. Russia would strongly oppose it, and Europe will not take on that responsibility. 

Q. The EU’s 26 member states recently issued a joint statement saying any “just and sustainable peace” must respect international law, independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity - and that borders cannot be changed by force. Will this position affect the “territorial exchange” idea? Could Europe be involved in these negotiations? 

A. No. These talks are primarily between the US and Russia, and Trump excluded Europe from the start - something Russia also demanded. In fact, Ukraine itself is not directly represented in these negotiations so far. While Ukraine will be discussed, so will other sensitive matters between two nuclear superpowers.

Q. Zelenskyy has said Putin was “not preparing for a ceasefire” and was planning new offensives. If the Trump-Putin meeting results in territorial concessions, will it stop Russian aggression or encourage further advances? 

A. I agree with Zelenskyy. Putin is using these talks to buy time. In recent days, Russian forces advanced about 15 kilometres in the Pokrovsk direction, seizing roughly 10 square kilometres a day. It may not seem like much, but they are steadily pushing forward despite massive casualties - something Russia largely disregards. This pace suits Putin, making an immediate end to the war unattractive for him. 

Q. Is Putin trying to improve his bargaining position by making gains on the front line before talks? 

A. Absolutely. The offensive is active in all directions - east, north, and south. Putin’s main target is to fully capture the Donetsk region. He already controls nearly all of Luhansk, with about 25% of Donetsk remaining, including Kramatorsk and Sloviansk. Capturing these would fulfil his declared claims over all four regions.

Q. US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told Fox News that a peace deal would involve “concessions that no one will be happy with” and that Putin would not have agreed to meet without feeling pressure. What kind of pressure could lead Russia to accept a territorial exchange while still on the offensive? 

A. At present, Ukraine no longer controls the Kursk region. A year ago, Ukraine took parts of it, but eight months later Russia recaptured them. I believe the “exchange” being discussed might involve Ukraine ceding the remaining parts of Donetsk without further fighting, in return for Russia withdrawing from the north - the Sumy region and parts near Kharkiv. In the south, however, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson would remain with Russia. I consider this whole scenario unlikely. 

Q. Finally, what is your forecast - will we see a full end to the war, or merely a freeze? 

A. Given Ukraine’s current position, the best option among bad ones is to freeze the war along the present front line. It would not restore the occupied territories, but it would give Ukraine breathing space. Whether Putin would agree is doubtful - he believes he is advancing and has no reason to stop.

By Elza Paposhvili