Confusion continues to surround the forthcoming United States–Russia summit on Ukraine, scheduled for 15 August in Alaska, following allegations that US special envoy Steve Witkoff misinterpreted key elements of the Russian position during talks with President Vladimir Putin in Moscow.
The meeting, announced earlier this week by Presidents Donald Trump and Putin, is intended to explore ways to end hostilities. However, accounts from European and Ukrainian officials, reported in Bild and corroborated by other sources, indicate that Moscow has not altered its core demands since early 2022. These include the complete withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from the four occupied regions of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, alongside recognition of Russian control over Crimea.
Peace or Capitulation? Putin’s Conditions for Ending the War in Ukraine
It had been suggested in earlier US briefings that Russia was prepared to withdraw from parts of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson in exchange for Ukrainian forces leaving parts of the Donetsk region. However, according to Bild, this was the result of a misunderstanding. In reality, Putin reportedly called for Ukraine to withdraw entirely from all four regions, without offering reciprocal territorial concessions.
This would effectively amount to the acceptance of Russia’s 2022–2024 annexation claims, which are enshrined in the Russian constitution. Analysts note that such a position has been consistently restated by Moscow since the early stages of the full-scale invasion, and that it would be politically and legally difficult for the Kremlin to reverse without amending its own constitution.
The Illusion of Detour: Russia’s Warpath and the Futility of Trump’s Peace Proposal
The misinterpretation attributed to Witkoff has prompted criticism in Kyiv and in several European capitals. Ukrainian officials have described his handling of the talks as “unprofessional”, alleging that he conveyed an overly optimistic account of Moscow’s stance to President Trump. Some German government representatives are said to share this view.
A conference call on Thursday between Witkoff, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Vice-President JD Vance, and European counterparts reportedly reinforced the perception of disorganisation within the US negotiating team. Observers noted apparent divisions: Rubio emphasised involving European partners in the process, while Vance and Witkoff appeared to favour limiting European participation to post-factum briefings.
The diplomatic episode has revived concerns over the direction of US policy. President Trump has previously suggested that Ukraine should consider “territorial exchanges” with Russia, a proposal rejected outright by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and by EU leaders. Critics argue that such proposals risk legitimising Russia’s territorial claims and undermining Ukraine’s sovereignty.
The Alaska meeting will take place without direct Ukrainian participation. Ukrainian and European officials are due to meet in London this weekend to coordinate their positions ahead of the summit. Sources familiar with these discussions acknowledge the difficulty of reconciling the positions: Washington’s current stance appears closer to Moscow’s long-standing demands than to Kyiv’s objectives, which remain the full restoration of its internationally recognised borders.
From a military perspective, Ukrainian analysts warn that accepting Russian demands could have significant operational consequences. The withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from contested regions would free up substantial Russian manpower and resources, potentially enabling renewed offensives deeper into Ukrainian territory. A partial or “sectoral” ceasefire—another element reportedly discussed—could prevent Ukraine from striking Russian logistical and industrial targets, while allowing Russian ground operations to continue.
The political implications for the United States are also under scrutiny. Some commentators in Washington and Europe see the Alaska summit as a symbolic concession, hosting the Russian president on US soil without securing substantive commitments in return. Others caution that any perceived missteps could damage the credibility of the US both with its allies and within the broader international community.
Witkoff, a long-time Trump associate without prior diplomatic experience, has visited Moscow several times since early 2025. Earlier visits also generated initial optimism, which later dissipated as Russian positions remained unchanged. Critics argue that his role reflects the administration’s preference for informal, leader-driven diplomacy, but carries risks when formal negotiation skills are required.
The episode underscores the fragility of the current diplomatic track. With the gap between Ukrainian, US, and Russian positions still wide, and with questions over the coherence of Washington’s approach, the likelihood of a breakthrough next week appears limited.
For Kyiv and its European allies, the immediate challenge lies in preventing any agreement that could weaken Ukraine’s strategic position, while managing the political consequences of a high-profile meeting between the US president and his Russian counterpart.
