In 1867, Russia’s Tsar Alexander II sold Alaska to America for several million dollars, fearing that his precarious imperial outpost could no longer be adequately defended. This week, Alaska finds itself once again at the centre of a debate concerning Russia’s borders and territorial ambitions, with President Donald Trump and President Vladimir Putin heading to the Last Frontier on Friday for peace talks. This time, however, Russia appears intent on gaining rather than conceding ground.
Moscow can feel encouraged by the beginning of discussions. By agreeing to a summit with Trump, Putin has avoided punishing new energy sanctions. Meanwhile, the Russian leader’s exact offer has been shrouded in confusion. US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff has reportedly been the source of misunderstandings, while European officials have requested multiple calls with the American side in a bid to understand the exact nature of Putin’s offer. Still, one aspect is clear: on Friday, Trump announced that “we’re going to get some back, we’re going to get some switched. There’ll be some swapping of territories to the betterment of both.”
It seems highly unlikely that this will be to the betterment of the Ukrainian side. While Russia had previously demanded full control along the entire frontline, Putin reportedly told Witkoff that he would offer a complete ceasefire if Ukraine agreed to withdraw forces from the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, along with Crimea, leaving them to Moscow. European officials received mixed signals from US counterparts as to whether Putin would pull out of the other contested regions of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, or merely freeze the frontlines. One US official indicated that Russian forces would remain at the current lines, negotiating land swaps with Ukraine until Moscow possessed all of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson. The prospect of a land swap is puzzling: since Ukraine no longer holds any Russian territory, it would mean offering Kyiv-controlled land in return for the territory that Moscow currently occupies. Trump clearly finds the land swap proposal reasonable ,while Zelensky has understandably rejected it, saying that “Ukrainians will not gift their land to the occupier”.
This is the scenario that Kyiv has long dreaded: that the mercurial US President, even after months of painstaking, behind-the-scenes diplomacy to repair relations between Washington and Kyiv, would strike a deal with Putin over the Ukrainian leader’s head before trying to foist it on Kyiv. What motivates Trump in all this is obvious — after successfully calming conflicts between India and Pakistan, and Armenia and Azerbaijan, he sees Ukraine as the ultimate entry on his Nobel Peace Prize nomination form. Besides, the Russians are still dangling a broader reset of relations between the US and Russia, which Trump sees as an opportunity to make highly lucrative economic deals.
“This is the scenario that Kyiv has long dreaded.”
As things stand, Alaska looks set to go down in history as another Yalta, as the two superpowers sit in a room and divide up Eastern Europe as though the Cold War never ended. Or, more precisely, two men. The risks of Trump and Putin meeting privately are stark: beneath the recent bluster, the US President still harbours a deep admiration for the Russian leader’s authoritarian grip on power. Putin, a former KGB officer, brings a spy’s talent for deception and manipulation, not to mention an instinct for flattering Trump and echoing even his most outlandish convictions. This is Putin’s dream scenario.
There is, of course, the possibility that this is all merely a ploy on Putin’s part. He may have felt some pressure from the US secondary sanctions being placed on Russian trade partners, including India, and decided this was the moment to blindside Trump with an offer — with little intention of following through with it. Kremlin messaging has been especially maximalist of late, with the Russian leader claiming back in June that “all of Ukraine” belongs to Russia. And indeed, Putin’s plan to mass-produce Oreshnik missiles and place them on Belarusian territory does not suggest a man eager for peace. A source told Reuters that the Russian General Staff believes the Ukrainian front will “crumble” within two or three months. The Russian military often provides excessively optimistic projections to the leadership, but these are also the views being whispered in the corridors of the Kremlin. From Putin’s perspective, therefore, there is no military impetus for him to make a deal other than the fact that Ukrainian forces withdrawing would be easier for him than fighting further battles.
If Russia’s offer is legitimate, where does Ukraine stand? There is talk of Trump hosting a trilateral meeting with Putin and Zelensky, but Putin would never agree to it. He has spent years casting doubt on Zelensky’s legitimacy as a leader and falsely claiming that the Ukrainian government is a “Nazi” regime. To meet Zelensky as an equal would be to confer upon Ukraine a sovereign status that Putin does not want to accord it.
In terms of timing, European officials have indicated that Trump and Putin’s proposal would have two phases — first, Ukraine would withdraw from Donetsk and the frontline would be frozen; second, Trump and Putin would agree on a peace plan to negotiate with Zelensky. Yet this plan is clearly flawed, setting Kyiv up for a scenario whereby Trump would be persuaded by Putin to back a deal that is disadvantageous to Ukraine, and then try to bully Zelensky into it. To lay the foundations for any lasting peace, the timings must be altered. If Trump is serious about earning his Nobel Peace Prize, he and his team should be going to and fro between Zelensky and Putin. After his meeting with Putin, Trump should announce a summit with Zelensky as soon as possible to make clear that the desires of Ukraine, as the injured party, are foremost in any discussions.
In the meantime, Zelensky has been wise to turn to Europe to shore up support and develop a counterproposal, one that stresses the need for a ceasefire before any other steps taken, for territory to be exchanged in a reciprocal matter, and ironclad security guarantees for Ukraine. Those security guarantees need to be robust — which means far stronger than anything the “coalition of the willing” can currently provide. Yet given the risk of Trump cutting off aid and intelligence to Ukraine if Zelensky rejects these unfair terms, Europe needs to intensively prepare for a scenario whereby it alone tries to supply Ukraine with weaponry.
Zelensky is also right to reject a lopsided deal that would involve his forces backing away from fortified defensive lines and which does not mention Russia withdrawing from the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant or from positions in Kharkiv, Sumy, Dnipropetrovsk and Mykolaiv oblasts. For Ukraine to withdraw from the contested oblasts would merely put Russia in a stronger position to attack and make further gains at a later date.
However, many in Ukraine are horrified not merely by the grossly unequal terms of this offer but at the prospect of Ukraine surrendering any land at all — a conversation that frankly had to happen sooner or later. Zelensky has pointed out that the Ukrainian constitution prevents him from doing any such thing, while various Ukrainian MPs have indicated that they would not vote to ratify a deal that would see parts of the country left to Russia to secure an end to the conflict.
It’s clear why Zelensky has maintained the maximalist, patriotic position that he cannot cede any territory to Russia. It is difficult to accept that land acquired through hostilities and atrocities should ever belong to the aggressor. It is similarly difficult to accept that Ukrainian citizens will be lost to Russian occupation. They would be subjected to ruthless suppression of Ukrainian identity and an atmosphere of constant fear and suspicion. They are also likely to face egregious human rights abuses and civilian executions. One wonders how long local resistance fighters can cling to hope once they realise their life under brutal occupation has been quietly accepted by their own government.
But even Zelensky has admitted that Ukraine will struggle to get the occupied territories back by military means. In his New Year address, he called for a “just peace” and reassured those in Moscow’s grip that “one day, Ukraine will return to be together”. Unless Kyiv is able to turn the tide of this war, then any peace deal will likely involve Russia holding on to some of its gains, with Ukraine and the West refusing to legally acknowledge the new borders, and Kyiv planning to take them back through diplomatic means later. As problems with desertion and exhaustion persist, even Ukrainian citizens are now reluctantly coming around to the idea of accepting — de facto, if not officially — Moscow’s occupation of the captured lands, provided that entails receiving security guarantees. However, we should expect stringent Russian demands for Kyiv to surrender further Ukrainian territory — and that will be harder to sell to the public.
There has to be greater public acknowledgement in Ukraine that Russian-occupied land will need to be abandoned, if only for now, for Moscow to agree to any peace. That prospect is not merely unjust — it is monstrous. But it is reality. It is the nature of war. And unless Kyiv can reverse the course of the war and reclaim its occupied territories, we must now finally confront what peace truly looks like.
