The announcement of the dome between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin on the 15 exemplifies the unpredictable diplomacy of the world’s largest economy. What should be an ultimatum to Putin-stop hostilities in Ukraine or face severe sanctions-on Friday (8), became a call for meeting in Alaska, without the participation of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
The event, seen by many as a “diplomatic triumph” to Putin, shows an already familiar pattern of trumpker diplomacy: a firm initial rhetoric, followed by a “soft retreat” that gives Kremlin more time and space. This sudden change of tone is not an isolated incident, but the latest chapter in Donald Trump’s complex and often contradictory posture compared to Russia and Ukraine.
Trump’s pattern: from compliments to Putin to guilt upon Ukraine
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Trump’s position has been marked by a series of turn and twists. For a long time, he directly avoided criticizing Russian President Vladimir Putin, even praising his actions as “genius” and “cunning”. This stance, which often echoed Kremlin’s narratives about the beginning of the conflict, caused concern among Western allies.
In several campaign rallies last year, Trump publicly promised that he would end the war in Ukraine in just 24 hours if he returned to the White House, without, however, offering details about how he would. In March 2025, he even said it was “a little sarcastic” when making this promise, although he repeated it several times.
Even more alarming to Kiev was Trump’s tendency to blame Ukraine herself by the beginning of the war. In February 2025, during a tense meeting at the Oval Hall with President Zelensky, Trump annoyed the Ukrainians by falsely claiming that Zelensky was responsible for the Russian invasion, still describing him as a “dictator without elections.”
The declaration, which ignored the practical difficulties for conducting elections in Ukraine devastated by war and with much of the displaced population, openly replicated Kremlin’s rhetoric. At that time, Trump even said, “Today I heard, ‘Oh, we were not invited.’ Well, you have been there for three years.
The relationship between Trump and Zelensky was already “icy”. The February 2025 meeting at the White House, described as a “heated discussion,” saw Trump and vice president JD Vance harshly criticize the Ukrainian leader. “You’re not in a very good position now,” Trump told Zelensky. “You allowed you to be in a very bad position. You don’t have the cards now. With us, you start to have cards.” This episode was seen as disastrous by Kiev, who, from then on, sought ardently recovering his relationship with Trump.
The surprising turn: Trump’s hardening against Russia
In the latest months, Trump’s posture began to show signs of hardening. He expressed frustration with Moscow’s attacks on Ukraine and surprisingly began to threaten with sanctions, generating some apprehension among the Russian elite that Putin could have “exaggerated.”
On March 30, Trump declared himself “annoyed” with Putin for questioning Zelensky’s legitimacy and would consider more tariffs about Russian oil “if he and the Russian president could not end the bloodshed in Ukraine” and “if I think it was Russia’s fault.” Despite criticizing Zelensky too, accusing him of trying to give up a weapon defense agreement with the US, Trump added that, although “disappointed” with Putin, he still trusted him.
Tom’s change deepened. On April 24, Trump criticized Putin again after more Russian attacks, writing on his social Truth platform: “I’m not happy with the Russian attacks on Kiev. They are not needed and they are bad time. Vladimir, stop!”
Two days later, at a private meeting with Zelensky at the Vatican, the first face to face since the White House visited, Trump intensified his criticism to Putin on his social networks, suggesting that the attacks made him “think that maybe he doesn’t want to stop war, he is just curling me, and needs to be treated differently through ‘benches’ or ‘secondary sanctions’? He concluded, “Many people are dying !!!”.
Threats of sanctions and support with weapons to Ukraine
In July, Trump’s support to Ukraine reached his strongest point. Days after the White House announced the suspension of some pentagon’s essential arms deliveries, Trump intensified criticism of Putin and promised to send more weapons to Ukraine. “I’m not happy with Putin, I can say that now, because he’s killing a lot of people,” he said. On July 13, it took an even more significant step, promising to help Ukraine get advanced weapons, including Patriot missiles, to be paid by the European Union.
The summit in Alaska: the proposal of “Territories Exchange” and the victory of Putin
Despite the recent hardening, Trump’s trajectory gave another dramatic turn on Friday, with the announcement of the summit with Putin in Alaska. The meeting came after an unexpected visit by Trump’s Steve Witkoff, Moscow special representative on August 6, where he met with Putin for three hours.
Witkoff’s diplomacy seems to have “changed the nature of the offer” of peace, says the The Economist. He would have nodded with the “carrot” of Russia’s reintegration to the world economy, including the cancellation of sanctions and the end of restrictions on hydrocarbons trade. At this point, Putin would have made his own offer: to cease the struggle if Ukraine voluntarily fell into the administrative borders of the provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk.
Trump’s suggestion that Ukraine “could give up some territory to Russia for peace”-describing it as “some exchange of territories for the benefit of both”-caused immediate “confusion” and alarm. Since Ukraine does not occupy Russian lands, any “exchange” would imply giving Ukrainian territory currently controlled by Kiev in exchange for land occupied by Russia.
Trump’s trajectory towards Ukraine and Russia reveals a pattern of “hard rhetoric, followed by a soft retreat.” This inconsistency is not only a feature of your personal style, but also a reflection of internal dynamics in your own administration. Sources heard by The Economist They describe the process as a “Horrors Show”, with “various emerging and overlapping texts”, described as “parallel work in progress”, generating great “confusion”.
International reactions: Kiev rejects and Europe fears being marginalized
Kiev’s response to Trump’s suggestion was immediate and unambiguous. President Zelensky “categorically rejected” any proposal to assign territory to Russia. Hours after Trump’s statements, Zelensky stated in a video statement: “The answer to the Ukrainian territorial question is already in the constitution of Ukraine. No one will retreat from it and no one can. The Ukrainians will not give their land to the occupant.”
European and Ukrainian leaders expressed great concern to be “marginalized” in the Trump-Putin summit. They fear that the two leaders “close a deal on their own” and try “to impose it to Kiev.” In response, European powers and Ukraine organized a meeting in London with high American employees to present a “counterproposal”.
The meeting, led by British Foreign Secretary David Lammy, and the US Vice President Jd Vance, was attended by Witkoff virtually. Europeans and Ukrainians were firm in their requirements:
- A ceasefire must precede any discussions on territorial changes;
- Ukraine will not deliver territory that Russia does not occupy; and
- Any agreement should be accompanied by “unshakable security guarantees,” including a potential adhesion from Ukraine to NATO.
They insisted that “the future of Ukraine cannot be decided without the Ukrainians” and that Europeans should also be part of the solution because “it concerns their safety
For Europe, Russia is seen as a “great strategic threat.” European leaders fear that “many concessions to Russia” only “will feed their appetite for more,” especially in the Baltic countries. The summit between Trump and Putin, for them, is a “symbolic display” that values Putin on the world scenario, but without having “significant concessions.”
An uncertain future for Ukraine and European security
The summit in Alaska, regardless of the real intentions of peace, represents a clear “diplomatic victory” for Vladimir Putin, experts highlighted to The Economist. The meeting will be the first between America and Russia in four years and the most ostentatious appearance of the Russian dictator since the Ukraine invasion in 2022.
The confusion around the proposals, the egos in conflict in the Trump administration and the firm refusal of Kiev in giving territory painting a picture of great uncertainty. While Europeans and Ukrainians desperately seek a place at the table and robust safety guarantees, Russia capitalizes the diplomatic visibility that the meeting with Trump offers.
