“`html
U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin are set to convene at Friday’s summit in Alaska, each bringing divergent priorities to discussions aimed at resolving the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.
Putin has consistently asserted his desire to secure Ukrainian territory, while Trump has openly expressed his ambition to broker peace on a global scale.
Both leaders may also perceive ancillary benefits, such as the potential for diplomatic rehabilitation on the international stage for Putin. Deciphering Trump’s objectives is more challenging, given his recent, often contradictory, statements regarding his Russian counterpart.
Here’s a deeper examination of the potential motivations driving each leader’s participation in the meeting.
By Russia editor Steve Rosenberg
Putin’s primary objective at this summit is, in essence, already achieved.
That objective is recognition.
Recognition from the United States, the world’s foremost power, signaling the failure of Western efforts to isolate the Kremlin leader.
The very occurrence of this high-level meeting, coupled with the Kremlin’s announced joint press conference, underscores this point. The Kremlin can now assert Russia’s restored position at the forefront of global politics.
“So much for being isolated,” exclaimed the tabloid Moskovsky Komsomolets earlier in the week.
Beyond merely securing a U.S.-Russia summit, Putin has also secured a strategically advantageous location. Alaska presents several benefits for the Kremlin.
Firstly, security. At its closest point, mainland Alaska is a mere 90km (55 miles) from Russia’s Chukotka, allowing Vladimir Putin to travel without traversing “hostile” airspace.
Secondly, its geographical distance from Ukraine and Europe aligns with the Kremlin’s strategy of marginalizing Kyiv and EU leaders, preferring direct engagement with the United States.
Historical symbolism is also at play. Moscow is leveraging the 19th-century sale of Alaska by Tsarist Russia to the United States to justify its contemporary attempts to alter borders by force.
“Alaska is a clear example that state borders can change, and that large territories can switch ownership,” wrote Moskovsky Komsomolets.
However, Putin seeks more than just international recognition and symbolic gestures.
He desires victory, insisting that Russia retain all territories seized and occupied within four Ukrainian regions (Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson) and demanding Kyiv’s withdrawal from areas within those regions still under Ukrainian control.
This is unacceptable to Ukraine. “Ukrainians will not give their land to the occupier,” states the country’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky.
The Kremlin is aware of this. However, securing Trump’s endorsement of its territorial demands could lead to a calculation that Ukraine’s rejection would result in Trump ceasing all support for Kyiv. Simultaneously, Russia and the U.S. would proceed with strengthening relations and fostering economic cooperation.
Yet, an alternative scenario exists.
Russia’s economy is facing strain. The budget deficit is increasing, while income from oil and gas exports is declining.
If economic challenges are prompting Putin to seek an end to the war, the Kremlin may be willing to compromise.
Currently, there is no indication of this, with Russian officials continuing to assert Russia’s initiative on the battlefield.
By North America correspondent Anthony Zurcher
Trump famously promised during his 2024 presidential campaign that ending the Ukraine war would be a straightforward task, achievable within days.
This promise has loomed over the American president’s efforts to resolve the conflict, marked by alternating periods of frustration with both the Ukrainians and the Russians since his return to the White House in January.
He confronted Zelensky during a tense White House meeting in February, and subsequently temporarily suspended military aid and intelligence sharing with the war-torn nation.
In recent months, he has grown more critical of Putin’s inflexibility and attacks on civilian targets, setting numerous deadlines for new sanctions on Russia and nations conducting business with them. Last Friday marked the most recent deadline, and as with previous instances, Trump ultimately refrained from action.
He is now hosting the Russian president on American soil, discussing potential “land-swapping,” which Ukraine fears may involve territorial concessions in exchange for peace.
Therefore, any assessment of Trump’s objectives during Friday’s talks with Putin is complicated by the president’s inconsistent statements and actions.
This week, Trump has made a concerted effort to temper expectations for the meeting – perhaps acknowledging the limited potential for a breakthrough with only one party to the conflict present.
On Monday, he characterized the summit as a “feel-out” meeting, suggesting he would discern whether a deal with the Russian leader was possible “probably in the first two minutes.”
“I may leave and say good luck, and that’ll be the end,” he added. “I may say this is not going to be settled.”
On Tuesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt reinforced this message, describing the summit as a “listening session.” However, by midweek, he was again promoting the prospects of a deal, asserting that both Zelensky and Putin desire peace.
With Trump, anticipating the unexpected is often the most prudent approach. Zelensky and European leaders engaged with him on Wednesday to ensure he does not strike a deal with Putin that Ukraine cannot, or will not, accept.
Throughout the year, one aspiration has remained consistent: Trump would welcome the opportunity to be the individual who ends the war.
In his inaugural address, he expressed his desire for his most significant legacy to be that of a “peacemaker.” His yearning for the international recognition associated with a Nobel Peace Prize is well-known.
In the Oval Office on Thursday, Trump highlighted the global conflicts he believes he has successfully resolved since assuming office in January. However, when questioned about the war in Ukraine, he offered a rare acknowledgement of the challenge he confronts.
“I thought the easiest one would be this one,” he said. “It’s actually the most difficult.”
Trump is not inclined to be encumbered by details. However, should an opportunity arise for him to claim progress toward peace during the talks in Anchorage, he will seize it.
Putin, a consistently astute negotiator, may seek a means to enable Trump to do precisely that – on Russia’s terms, of course.
The leaders’ head-to-head will be a blockbuster moment in politics and a further glimpse into their relationship.
After Japan’s surrender in 1945, people across the world celebrated the end of World War Two.
Sean Dunn was fired from the Department of Justice after video appeared to show him hurling a deli sandwich at an officer.
The ex-president’s son Eduardo says Brazil does “not deserve the privilege of the free market”, as his father faces coup charges.
What the president sees on his journey out of Washington DC helps explain this week’s push to clean up the capital.
“`