President Donald Trump is set to sit down with Russian President Vladimir Putin this Friday in Anchorage, Alaska, for a pivotal discussion on ending the war in Ukraine. This meeting, initiated at Putin's request, has already stirred controversy for sidelining Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
According to Fox News, the White House confirmed that Trump agreed to this face-to-face encounter to gain a clearer perspective on resolving the conflict. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt emphasized that direct dialogue, rather than phone calls, offers the best chance to assess how to move forward.
Leavitt told reporters on Tuesday, "The goal of this meeting for the president is to walk away with a better understanding of how we can end this war." While the administration's intent sounds pragmatic, one has to wonder if cutting out Ukraine from the initial conversation risks undermining the very peace they claim to seek.
Zelenskyy, predictably, has pushed back hard against being excluded from decisions that directly impact his nation. He stated on Saturday, "Any decisions made against us, any decisions made without Ukraine — they are simultaneously decisions against peace."
His words carry weight, as they highlight a fundamental flaw in negotiating a conflict without one of the primary parties involved. It’s tough to imagine a lasting resolution when the country bearing the brunt of the war gets no say in the opening round.
European allies have also rallied behind Ukraine, issuing a joint statement on Saturday that the "path to peace in Ukraine cannot be decided without Ukraine." Their stance serves as a reminder that bypassing Kyiv could alienate key partners whose support is vital for any agreement to hold.
On Monday, Trump shared with reporters his belief that he’d gauge Putin’s seriousness about a deal within minutes of their meeting. He also hinted at complex territorial issues, mentioning that "land swapping" would likely be part of any potential arrangement.
While Trump’s confidence in reading the room is notable, the idea of casually discussing territorial concessions without Ukraine’s input feels like a risky opening gambit. Real peace requires trust, and starting with a closed-door deal could erode it before talks even expand.
Trump did assure reporters he’d loop in Zelenskyy and European leaders after the meeting, stating, "If it’s a fair deal, I will reveal it to the European Union leaders and the NATO leaders and also to President Zelenskyy." Yet, the sequencing here raises questions about whether Ukraine will be presented with a fait accompli rather than a seat at the table.
Leavitt clarified that the administration isn’t ruling out either a concrete peace deal or simply using this as a chance to test the waters with Putin. She noted on Tuesday, "The president has always said he wants a peace deal. He wants to see this war come to an end."
Her comments suggest a pragmatic approach, but they also underscore the unilateral nature of this first step, as she added, "You need both countries to agree to a deal." If both sides are indeed necessary, starting without Ukraine seems like stacking the deck against a balanced outcome.
The choice of Anchorage as the meeting spot, after speculation about a location in Russia, was also addressed by Leavitt, who said, "Alaska is a state within the United States of America." Hosting Putin on American soil may be a symbolic win, but it does little to address the deeper issue of who’s actually in the room.
As Friday’s meeting approaches, the exclusion of Zelenskyy looms large over Trump’s strategy to broker an end to the Ukraine conflict. While the intent to engage directly with Putin might aim for efficiency, it risks alienating the very nation whose future hangs in the balance.
The White House’s insistence on understanding Putin’s position firsthand is understandable, yet peace isn’t a two-player game when a third party’s survival is at stake. Ignoring Ukraine’s voice at this stage could turn a potential breakthrough into a diplomatic misstep.
Ultimately, the Anchorage talks will test whether Trump’s deal-making instincts can navigate the messy realities of war and geopolitics. The hope is for a step toward resolution, but without Ukraine’s early involvement, any progress might be built on shaky ground.
