Former U.S. President Donald Trump says “there’s no deal until there’s a deal” but insists significant progress was made during his latest round of Ukraine peace talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The two leaders met for almost three hours in Alaska, where the highly anticipated summit drew global attention at a time when the war in Ukraine continues to devastate lives and destabilize international politics.
At a press briefing following the meeting, Trump struck a cautiously optimistic tone. “We didn’t get there,” he said, acknowledging that no final agreement had been reached, “but progress was made.” His remarks have immediately generated a wave of reactions across Washington, Brussels, Kyiv, and Moscow, where political analysts had spent days issuing predictions about what the summit might—or might not—deliver.
The Russian president, for his part, said Moscow is “sincerely interested” in ending the conflict in Ukraine but offered no additional detail on how exactly that might happen. Neither Trump nor Putin took questions from reporters after the meeting, leaving journalists and policy experts to analyze every gesture, sentence, and body language cue.
A Carefully Orchestrated Meeting
Before the talks officially began, camera footage showed Trump and Putin exchanging a warm greeting on the tarmac in Anchorage, Alaska. The two shook hands not once but twice, smiling and speaking briefly before being ushered into Trump’s presidential-style limousine. They then travelled together to the summit venue—an unusual protocol choice that analysts say was meant to send a message of cooperation and personal chemistry between the two leaders.
Inside, sources say the discussion centered heavily on possible pathways to ceasefire, the future status of occupied territories, and the role that NATO might play in a negotiated peace. While no official document was signed and no roadmap published, Trump’s spokesperson told US media the two sides “covered a lot of ground” including security guarantees, humanitarian access, and post-conflict reconstruction.
Zelensky Left Out—and Urged To “Make a Deal”
One of the most controversial aspects of the summit was that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was not invited to take part. This drew immediate criticism from Ukrainian officials, who warned that any negotiations without Kyiv’s involvement could seriously undermine the country’s sovereignty.
Responding to a media question in a later interview, Trump said he hoped Zelensky would “make a deal” and emphasized that “wars end when people sit down and talk.” The comment is likely to fuel fresh debate both in Ukraine and among its Western allies over whether Kyiv should agree to potential territorial concessions in exchange for peace.
Zelensky has repeatedly stated that all Russian troops must withdraw from Ukrainian territory, including Crimea, before any long-term peace can be negotiated. Ukrainian commentators have therefore viewed Trump’s remark as a sign that Kyiv may face increasing pressure in the coming months to accept a negotiated settlement, particularly if the military situation on the ground becomes more difficult.
International Reaction: Relief, Concern and Uncertainty
In Kyiv, the immediate reaction was described as a “sigh of relief” by veteran journalist Vitaliy Shevchenko, writing for the BBC. He notes that there were deep concerns Ukraine might be ambushed by a surprise announcement containing territory-for-peace concessions. “That would have shocked and angered many Ukrainians and their supporters,” Shevchenko writes.
Across European capitals, the fact that no deal was announced drew a mixed response. Some officials said they welcomed the continued diplomatic dialogue, while others expressed concern that private bilateral talks between Trump and Putin—without Ukraine in the room—could slowly pave the way for an agreement unfavorable to Kyiv.
The European Union’s foreign policy chief released a brief statement welcoming “any serious, good-faith effort” aimed at resolving the conflict, but stressed that “any durable peace must respect the territorial integrity and independence of Ukraine.”
In Washington, congressional Republicans praised Trump for engaging in talks, describing it as proof of his diplomatic skill and willingness to try new approaches. Democrats, however, accused him of sidelining Ukraine and seeking “a backroom deal.”
Putin’s Calculated Language
For his part, President Vladimir Putin gave only a short post-meeting comment. He said that Russia remained “sincerely interested in putting an end to the conflict” but did not offer any details about how that might be achieved or which specific concessions Russia might be willing to make.
That carefully chosen phrasing is seen by analysts as a typical Putin tactic—suggesting flexibility without committing to anything specific. The strategy allows the Kremlin to appear open to diplomacy while maintaining full leverage in ongoing military operations.
Some analysts point out that Russia is currently focused on incremental territorial gains in eastern Ukraine, and that openly declaring an interest in peace is a strategic move—particularly as global opinion begins to shift and the financial cost of war continues to grow.
What Was Discussed Behind Closed Doors?
Though little has been officially disclosed, multiple sources suggest the talks may have included the following key topics:
- Immediate humanitarian ceasefire options and possible ceasefire monitoring mechanisms.
- Possible international peacekeeping mission under a U.N. or “coalition of willing” mandate.
- Reconstruction funding and whether Western powers would help rebuild war-damaged regions.
- Ukraine’s future relationship with NATO and potential guarantee of non-expansion eastwards.
- The status of Crimea and the four territories Russia claimed to annex in 2022.
At least for now, those questions remain unanswered—and hugely contentious.
Symbolism Timing and Location
The summit’s location and timing were also rich in symbolism. Alaska—the U.S. state bought from Russia in 1867—is seen by historians as one of the first major geopolitical transactions between Moscow and Washington. Holding talks there now creates a symbolic link between past cooperation and a possible new chapter of pragmatic diplomacy.
Meanwhile, the length of the meeting—almost three full hours—also indicates that discussions were detailed and comprehensive, not merely ceremonial. A U.S. official described the tone as “frank and direct,” a diplomatic phrase often used to imply differences remained but dialogue continued.
Where Does This Leave the Conflict?
With no concrete agreement, the war on the ground continues. Ukrainian officials say Russian forces remain active on multiple fronts, particularly in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. At the same time, Kyiv continues to receive Western military aid, although some fatigue is beginning to show among European governments facing domestic economic pressure.
Trump, who has long expressed skepticism about America’s role in foreign wars, has hinted that if elected again, he would push harder for a diplomatic resolution, even if it means “hard choices.” Critics fear that could ultimately lead to concessions detrimental to Ukraine’s long-term sovereignty.
Supporters, however, argue that Trump’s willingness to engage directly with Putin and discuss “uncomfortable options” may be the only realistic path to ending the conflict, given that the battlefield appears locked in a dangerous and costly stalemate.
The Road Ahead
For now, the world is left waiting for the next development. Trump signaled that more discussions could take place in “the coming weeks”, possibly involving European partners this time around. However, he also cautioned against expecting quick breakthroughs, repeating, “There’s no deal until there’s a deal.”
In Kyiv, officials continue to stress that any peace must be based on international law and Ukrainian consent, not geopolitical bargains made behind closed doors. The Zelensky government has stated it remains open to negotiations—but not at the cost of giving up its sovereign territor
The Trump-Putin Alaska summit has ended without a signed agreement, but not without consequences. It has reignited global debate about whether and how the Ukraine conflict should be resolved diplomatically. It has exposed tensions between Western and Ukrainian perceptions of an acceptable peace. And it has underscored the complex international dynamics that will shape the next phase of the war.
Whether this meeting represents the first step toward peace—or simply another moment of diplomatic theater—remains to be seen. What is clear is that the stakes could not be higher for Ukraine, Europe, Russia, and the wider world.
If you’d like, I can also add SEO-targeted headings and meta description, or reformat this article specifically for WordPress or Blogg
