What to Expect From the Trump-Putin Alaska Summit
from Europe Program
from Europe Program

What to Expect From the Trump-Putin Alaska Summit

Russian President Vladimir Putin talks to U.S. President Donald Trump during their bilateral meeting at the G20 summit in Hamburg, Germany, July 7, 2017.
Russian President Vladimir Putin talks to U.S. President Donald Trump during their bilateral meeting at the G20 summit in Hamburg, Germany, July 7, 2017. Carlos Barria/Reuters

Presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump are holding their first bilateral meeting since 2019 with the fate of Ukraine’s war seemingly in the balance. Three CFR experts assess the prospects for best, worst, and most likely outcomes from the highly anticipated summit.

August 14, 2025 1:50 pm (EST)

Russian President Vladimir Putin talks to U.S. President Donald Trump during their bilateral meeting at the G20 summit in Hamburg, Germany, July 7, 2017.
Russian President Vladimir Putin talks to U.S. President Donald Trump during their bilateral meeting at the G20 summit in Hamburg, Germany, July 7, 2017. Carlos Barria/Reuters
Article
Current political and economic issues succinctly explained.

This article is part of the Council Special Initiative on Securing Ukraine’s Future.

More From Our Experts

The August 15 summit at a U.S. air base in Alaska between Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Donald Trump culminates months of diplomatic efforts by the White House to end Europe’s bloodiest conflict since World War II. Trump entered office vowing to end the three-year war swiftly, and he initially focused much of the blame for his peacemaking challenges on Ukraine and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. 

More on:

Ukraine

United States

Europe

However, in recent months Trump has directed more criticism at Putin for relentless and increasingly destructive Russian attacks on Ukraine, setting an early August deadline for Russia to show genuine commitment to a ceasefire or face harsher sanctions. As the deadline approached, Russian and U.S. officials agreed to a bilateral summit to try to reach common ground. Their decision to exclude Zelenskyy from the meeting raised alarm in both Kyiv and European capitals about what sort of deal—and Ukrainian territorial concessions—Putin and Trump could agree to. 

Ahead of the summit, CFR asked three fellows who have closely tracked the war to assess the possible best-and worst-case outcomes, as well as what they consider the most realistic scenario and its consequences for European security.

High Stakes for the Transatlantic Alliance 

More From Our Experts

Charles A. Kupchan is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and professor of international affairs at Georgetown University. 

The best summit outcome would be if Trump forges a framework agreement with Putin that can earn the support of Ukraine and NATO allies. Following the Alaska summit, Trump would begin discussing the deal with Zelenskyy and NATO leaders to build a unified transatlantic position that can then serve as the basis for further negotiations with Russia.  

More on:

Ukraine

United States

Europe

Such an agreement would likely have the following elements:  

  • A ceasefire in place, potentially including minor land swaps;  
  • Neither Ukraine nor the West would recognize the 20 percent of Ukraine occupied by Russia as Russian territory, but they would agree not to attempt to retake it by force;  
  • Russia would acknowledge that the 80 percent of Ukraine still controlled by Kyiv is a free, sovereign, and independent country. A free Ukraine would have the right to acquire the military capability to defend itself and to choose its future alignment, including European Union membership; 
  • NATO would no longer aim to offer Ukraine membership and would agree to limit the presence of NATO troops and armaments in Ukraine;  
  • As the agreement is implemented, the United States and its allies would agree to incrementally scale back economic sanctions against Russia. 


The worst outcome would be Trump agreeing to a flawed deal that is unacceptable to Ukraine and NATO allies. Putin has yet to back away from his maximalist war aims, which include regime change in Kyiv and Ukraine’s demilitarization—effectively turning Ukraine into a vassal state. Were Trump to agree to such a deal in the service of achieving a ceasefire, he would then tell Ukraine to “take it or leave it.” Ukraine would reject the deal, and Trump could then end all support for Ukraine. The result would be an irreparable breach in transatlantic relations and, potentially, Putin’s successful subjugation of Ukraine.   

The state of play after the summit will likely look much like the state of play before the summit. Putin has shown no signs yet that he is negotiating in good faith and is ready to back away from his initial war aims. Despite sustaining heavy casualties, Russia is making progress on the battlefield. Ukraine is facing manpower and resource constraints and continues to suffer withering air attacks. Putin believes, probably correctly, that time is on his side. He has every reason to buy more time by going through the motions of diplomacy with Trump while continuing the fight, hoping to “break” Ukraine politically and install a pro-Russian regime. 

If the outcome of the summit is the continuation of the status quo, then Trump will have made a mistake by prematurely meeting Putin. The meeting itself is a prize for the Russian leader—a seat at the table with the U.S. president and an end to years of diplomatic isolation. Let’s hope that in offering Putin that prize, Trump has good reason to believe Putin is ready to compromise and negotiate a deal acceptable to Ukraine.  

What a Wary Europe and Ukraine Are Watching

Liana Fix is a fellow for Europe.

The announcement of a summit between Trump and Putin in Alaska—without the presence of Zelenskyy—is itself a victory for the Russian president. The news left Europeans and Ukrainians scrambling frantically for damage control. European efforts have focused on finding out what possible peace proposals are actually on the table. They also want to prevent a repeat of the 2018 Helsinki meeting between Trump and Putin, in which Trump parroted Russian talking points and turned against his own intelligence community. 

The best plausible outcome would be if Trump uses the leverage he has against Putin to first push for an unconditional ceasefire. A ceasefire should not be contingent on Ukrainian concessions, but should serve as the starting point for discussions. A good deal would demand reciprocity in any territorial concessions and establish a roadmap for direct, high-level Russian-Ukrainian talks, including a leaders’ meeting. In the aftermath of that summit, Europeans could play a much greater role in helping the United States in Russian-Ukrainian negotiations. Putin could refuse these terms, which would likely result in Trump hardening his stance against Putin, or he could tentatively agree to them, enabling the West to move forward more united and therefore stronger. Both of these outcomes, while unlikely, are still possible. Trump has become frustrated and more cautious in his dealings with Putin. U.S. officials have already toned down expectations for the summit, framing it as a “listening exercise.” 

The worst-case scenario for Europeans would be an agreement between the United States and Russia that is unacceptable to Ukraine and Europe, especially if the United States tries to coerce them into a deal along the lines of Russia’s Istanbul framework proposal. These are the red lines from Europe’s and Ukraine’s point of view:

  • Ukraine’s demilitarization and a stop to Western weapon deliveries, which would significantly constrain Ukraine’s ability to defend itself;
  • Interference in Ukrainian domestic affairs, such as constitutional reforms;
  • A demand for Ukraine to give up territory in the East—the most fortified part of the frontline—without a reciprocal significant Russian withdrawal from occupied territories, especially if not accompanied by security guarantees;
  • A premature lifting of sanctions that is not linked to tangible progress towards peace;
  • A rollback of the U.S. and NATO presence in Eastern Europe, as demanded by Putin in December 2021;
  • A normalization of U.S.-Russia relations that bypasses Europe and Ukraine.

In the aftermath of a worst-case scenario, Europeans and Ukrainians could try to reverse the agreement or simply to refuse to implement it. Paper is patient, and any agreement is likely to be vaguely worded, especially if Trump’s trade agreements are anything to go by. However, the damage to public perception would already be done. The United States would be seen as turning away from Europe and the West, in favor of a U.S.-Russia rapprochement. Ukraine would be perceived by Trump as the obstacle to peace, not the victim of aggression. 

The most likely outcome will lie somewhere between the best- and worst-case scenarios. Possibly, Trump and Putin will “agree to agree”—Trump’s favorite instrument in the past, allowing him to produce one-pagers that provide little detail but give the impression of a victory. In such a case, it will be important to pay attention to both the Russian and American accounts and any differences between them. Given that there has been little preparation for this last-minute summit and neither side has clear areas for compromise, this outcome seems the most plausible. Trump may believe he has the ability to “wing” such a meeting. As he has done before, he may overestimate his abilities, to the detriment of Ukraine. Still, a summit that yields no substance would be better than one that pits the United States and Russia together against Europe and Ukraine. 

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz attend a virtual talk in Berlin, Germany, August 13, 2025. John Macdougall/Pool/Reuters

Expect Little Real Progress Amid the Spectacle

Paul B. Stares is the John W. Vessey senior fellow for conflict prevention and director of the Center for Preventive Action.

Former British Prime Minister Harold Wilson once famously declared that “a week is a long time in politics.” In Trump’s world, a week can seem like an eternity with his norm-breaking pronouncements and head-spinning U-turns. The past week has been no exception. 

Exactly seven days after Trump warned Putin that the United States would impose punishing new sanctions and secondary tariffs for having failed to halt the fighting in Ukraine, the two leaders will sit down in Alaska to discuss whether a deal can be reached. 

Past summits of this kind—certainly those before Trump’s first term—were reasonably easy to predict since they were usually planned well in advance and highly choreographed. The most leaders were expected to do was deliver their talking points and sign off on whatever had already been agreed. Not so with the upcoming Alaska summit. Although the White House is lowering expectations about what to expect from the meeting—now implausibly calling it a listening exercise—everything we have come to know about Trump’s penchant for freelancing and going off script whenever he pleases means we should not dismiss a range of possible outcomes. 

The least likely is the best-case outcome, in which both leaders call for an immediate ceasefire and commit to meaningful peace negotiations. Setting out some basic principles and parameters for how to proceed in the form of an initial framework agreement or roadmap would also be welcome. Ideally, Trump would have listened closely to what Ukrainian and European leaders told him about their red lines in the consultations they held before the summit—not the least being that no deal with Putin should be struck, or can be expected to stick, without their approval. If this scenario plays out—and it’s a big and improbable if—there’s no reason why a truce could not take immediate effect and peace talks between Russia and Ukraine—with or without U.S. participation—commence soon after. 

At the other end of the spectrum of possible outcomes is the worst-case scenario, in which the summit quickly dissolves into rancorous exchanges and a dangerous rupture in U.S.-Russia relations ensues. Some observers might perversely welcome this result in the expectation that the United States would thereafter decisively commit to Ukraine’s victory by finally removing all limits on supplying it with the necessary military aid while imposing much harsher economic sanctions on Russia. Such a reaction from Trump, however, is hardly assured; he could just as easily wash his hands of trying to make peace and leave Ukrainians and Europeans to their fate. Even if Trump did break with Russia, how confident can anyone be that additional U.S. military aid and economic sanctions would have the desired effect? How much more human suffering would ensue if the war drags on, not to mention a return to Cold War levels of great power confrontation?   

Somewhere in the middle of the range of possible outcomes is probably the most likely—no real progress toward ending the war but no significant setback either. Both sides will claim that the talks were candid and productive. A temporary suspension of attacks on urban centers (but not on the front lines) might even be floated as a “good faith” commitment to peace. This would cost Putin little, since he’s observed one such pause—kinda sorta—before. And Trump could claim he got something from Putin.

How long anything that comes out of the summit lasts is anyone’s guess. A week is a long time in politics after all. 

This work represents the views and opinions solely of the authors. The Council on Foreign Relations is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher, and takes no institutional positions on matters of policy.

Creative Commons
Creative Commons: Some rights reserved.
Close
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) License.
View License Detail
Close

Top Stories on CFR

Southeast Asia

Autocrats have become more skilled in their intimidation and even harm of exiled dissidents and critics living abroad. Many countries where this repression is happening have weakened defenses against it or tolerated it because of economic ties to autocratic powers.

Conflict Prevention

The world continues to grow more violent and disorderly. According to CFR’s annual conflict risk assessment, American foreign policy experts are acutely concerned about conflict-related threats to U.S. national security and international stability that are likely to emerge or intensify in 2026. In this report, surveyed experts rate global conflicts by their likelihood and potential harm to U.S. interests and, for the first time, identify opportunities for preventive action.

Space

A new executive order sets an ambitious course for lunar exploration, missile defense, and commercial investment but overlooks the need for practical rules agreed to by all spacefaring countries.