As the fourth year of the Russia-Ukraine war slowly draws to a close, U.S. President Donald Trump continues to proclaim that he can “bring peace in 24 hours,” emphasizing his claim to be the sole problem-solver in the process. Within Nobel Peace Prize circles, it is also evident that developments in the resolution of this war are being closely monitored, creating an atmosphere that seems almost tied to the progress of this conflict.
Examining the current situation, there have been increasing indications in the media that Russia may face difficulties on the Ukrainian front in recent weeks. The heavy military deployments along the front lines signal Ukraine’s efforts to strengthen its defensive positions and redeploy long-range systems supplied by the West to forward positions. In response, Russia has also been moving in new units to maintain its offensive capacity. In the process, Trump stepped in again, first reducing the 50-day deadline he had given Russia to 10 days. At the same time, he drew up a new road map targeting both Russia and third countries with new sanctions. His aim is not only to put pressure on Russia, but also on countries cooperating with Russia, and to end the war as soon as possible. However, questions arise as to how effective this plan will be. Meanwhile, last week, U.S. Special Representative for the Middle East Steve Witkoff made his fifth visit to Russia.
While so many meetings in such a short period demonstrate the U.S.’ determination, they also reflect Russia’s efforts to gain time in the process. Ultimately, the process was announced as a summit between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska. However, there are legitimate questions about this summit: Why Alaska? Why now? Moreover, who will be present at the summit, and what will be the outcome?
Summer offensives vs. pressure
From a historical perspective, it is worth noting that warfare in these lands follows a seasonal rhythm. Summer, with its dry terrain and expanded logistical capabilities, is the period of most intense operational activity. In winter, however, the muddy season (rasputitsa) and severe cold limit large-scale operations at the front. French Gen. Napoleon Bonaparte’s 1812 campaign and German politician Adolf Hitler’s 1941 Operation Barbarossa are historical examples of how winter conditions in the geography of Ukraine and Russia have had devastating effects on large armies.
In this context, Russia’s intensification of offensives during the summer should be read as a strategic choice. Moscow seeks to gain as much territory as possible before winter to strengthen its hand in potential negotiations. This issue is particularly evident in regions such as Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, which were declared annexed in 2022. On the Trump side, there is a continuous effort to create expectations of an imminent cease-fire, projecting the perception to the public that “without me, this war will not end.”
The planned Putin-Trump meeting in Alaska on Aug. 15 is expected to be a key stage for this narrative. Meanwhile, mediation efforts between Russia and Ukraine continue in Istanbul. These talks, hosted by Türkiye, demonstrate that the diplomatic channel is not entirely closed; however, the ongoing military activity on the ground makes it challenging for negotiations to yield a lasting peace in the short term. In conclusion, Russia continues to pursue an aggressive and expansionist policy, capitalizing on the operational advantages offered by the summer season. Ukraine, on the other hand, is fortifying its defenses with Western support while seeking opportunities to launch counteroffensives. Although the diplomatic table remains active, the seasonal dynamics of the war and the balance of power on the ground reveal that a genuine peace remains a challenging goal to achieve.
What is the message behind Alaska?
When considering the question, “What is the rationale behind holding this meeting in Alaska?” a few important points emerge for our reflection.
First of all, although Alaska may be seen as a “glacier” sold by Russia to the U.S. in 1867 after the Crimean War, it is a place with much deeper meaning. With this sale, Russia not only sold a mass of ice, but also its future and part of its power dominance in the Arctic region. From this perspective, the sale of this piece of land for $7.2 million carries greater geopolitical significance than Napoleon’s sale of Louisiana in 1804. The strong historical reference that Alaska embodies reflects both a shared past between the U.S. and Russia and symbolizes “lost territory” for the latter.
Another political message intended to be conveyed is the perception of the great powers gathering at Trump’s table. Under the hierarchical system established by Trump, the dominance of the great powers in the talks – and the exclusion of Ukraine and the EU from the process – is a very important point.
There is also the fact of Putin’s arrest warrant, issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC), which made it necessary for him to choose a secure venue entirely under U.S. control. Due to its geographically isolated location, Alaska is both close to Russia and offers a controlled negotiation environment, removed from external diplomatic influences.
Ice cold diplomacy
Alongside his domestic political calculations, Trump aims to strengthen his image as a peacemaker on a tangible diplomatic stage in the global arena. Furthermore, he seeks to consolidate his influence in the Caucasus, particularly through his most recent diplomatic success regarding the Zangezur process, and to achieve this with Russia’s acceptance. In this regard, Trump appears open to a flexible agreement. Russia’s summer offensives, on the other hand, reveal its objective of securing as many territorial gains as possible before winter, thereby entering negotiations from a position of strength. Another dimension of this process is the formation of a new Ukrainian map with U.S. approval, which would inevitably gain recognition within the global system.
Additionally, preventing Ukraine from joining NATO and weakening its military capacity remain key objectives for Moscow. The Alaska Summit has been scheduled precisely at the midpoint of this shifting balance of power. Within the Western alliance, while debates persist over the economic and political burden of supporting Ukraine, the direct U.S.-Russia dialogue is testing the cohesion of the West. Although the U.S. remains the primary decision-maker, Ukraine, as the primary actor that should rightfully be at the table, is, unfortunately, more akin to being “on the menu.” Ukraine’s core demand is to safeguard its territorial integrity in accordance with the U.N. Charter and to secure guarantees against Russia.
However, the U.S. and Russia, by meeting on “cold ground,” appear inclined to create a new frozen conflict zone. In such zones, the role of Ukraine and Europe will be mainly shaped to the extent permitted by Trump. Whether the U.S. will be influenced by Russia’s “cold diplomacy” remains to be seen.
Be First to Comment