The White House and the Kremlin say a meeting between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin will take place in Alaska on Friday, 15 August, with Ukraine at the top of the agenda. Mr Trump announced the venue and date on Friday; Russian officials later confirmed the plan.
The choice of Alaska departs from earlier suggestions that the talks might be held in Rome, possibly at the Vatican, after contacts between Washington and Rome during the week. Reports now indicate the US state was selected for practical reasons, including proximity across the Bering Strait.
Kyiv has reiterated that no decisions about Ukraine can be taken without Ukraine. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said his government remains in contact with the United States and partners, and that security advisers were still working on 8 August to prepare for potential diplomatic steps. In separate remarks, he rejected any settlement that would involve ceding Ukrainian territory.
Mr Trump has previously signalled that he wants the leaders to discuss a ceasefire and has spoken about possible “swapping” of territory as part of a wider package. Kyiv and several European governments have opposed any arrangement that formalises Russian control over occupied regions, arguing that such terms would contravene Ukraine’s constitution and reward aggression.
Under international law, treaties concluded under the threat or use of force are invalid. Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states that a treaty is void if its conclusion has been procured by coercion of a state. Any agreement would also have to comply with Ukraine’s domestic law, including constitutional provisions on territorial integrity.
Officials and analysts point to two immediate tests for any ceasefire: monitoring and enforcement. Previous attempts to reduce violence since 2014 relied on international observation, yet violations were frequent and at times severe along the line of contact. Without a robust verification regime and agreed consequences for breaches, the risk of a rapid breakdown would remain high.
Questions also remain over the format. Some reporting has suggested a first Trump–Putin meeting may precede any direct leader-level session involving Ukraine. Kyiv has said it is “ready for real decisions that can bring peace”, but insists those decisions must include Ukraine at the table. European capitals will watch for clarity on participation and any role for third-party facilitators.
Logistics and optics will matter. An Alaskan venue places the encounter on US soil yet geographically close to Russia; Kremlin adviser Yuri Ushakov said it was “logical” for a Russian delegation to travel across the Bering Strait. The White House has not released the precise site or schedule. Any subsequent session on Russian territory has been floated by Moscow as a possibility.
Beyond the venue, three substantive issues will shape outcomes:
Ceasefire parameters. The sides would need to define the lines to which forces would stand down, the timing, and the status of heavy weapons. Verification mechanisms—personnel, technology and reporting—would need agreement in advance rather than after a political announcement.
Territorial claims and law. Any proposal that purports to alter recognised borders engages both international and Ukrainian constitutional law. The Vienna Convention’s coercion clause, and broader limits around jus cogens, set legal boundaries that negotiators must observe.
Follow-on process. Even if a pause in fighting is declared, a durable settlement would require phased steps on security, humanitarian access, detainee exchanges, and economic measures. Previous processes have shown that sequencing and conditionality are as important as the headline announcement.
For Ukraine, the immediate priority is to maintain close coordination with the United States and European partners while making clear the legal and political constraints on any deal. For Washington and Moscow, the Alaska meeting offers a platform to test whether there is scope for de-escalation without pre-judging final status questions.
As of today, the only confirmed facts are the date, the location, and the intention to discuss Ukraine. The content of any draft text has not been released. Signals from all sides indicate that expectations should focus on whether a framework for further talks can be established, rather than a comprehensive accord concluded at a first encounter.
The Illusion of Detour: Russia’s Warpath and the Futility of Trump’s Peace Proposal
