Diplomatic Marathon on Ukraine: Is Peace Within Reach?

Despite the continued tactical maneuvering by all parties involved, the chances of reaching a peace agreement on Ukraine in the coming weeks have never looked more promising

The meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin in Alaska has already been described as a turning point. Its pompous protocol, from the red carpet to the military parade, was carefully orchestrated. Every detail appeared meticulously planned to foster a climate of friendliness, reduce the degree of confrontation, and signal willingness to compromise. While the ceremony and symbolic gestures may have resembled a theatrical production, in diplomacy such moments are crucial. They set the psychological tone of the meeting, creating space for mutual respect and recognition, even in the face of unresolved differences. Yet, despite the ceremonial grandeur, each side pursued its own carefully calculated political strategy. While seeking to demonstrate there was still room for dialogue, Washington and Moscow simultaneously embedded their own interests and visions into the negotiations. Trump, a master of media images, used the Russian president’s visit to underscore his status as a peacemaker who can interact with the Kremlin and (re)convince it. Notably, both leaders struck emotional chords in their rhetoric: Putin alluded to the alleged rigging of the 2020 U.S. election and the assassination attempt on Trump, while Trump emphasized the value of personal, trust-based relationships. These gestures were part of a subtle diplomatic game aimed at winning mutual favour and conveying an image of mutual trust. The format of the negotiations in Anchorage was strictly streamlined, a 3-on-3 setup with no extended delegations or traditional working dinner. Representing the United States were President Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Adviser Howard Witkoff; the Russian delegation included President Putin, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, and presidential aide Yuri Ushakov. This tightly limited composition signaled that the talks were not aimed at finalizing formal agreements, but rather bridging gaps in a confidential setting and building a shared understanding in principle. It is known that the United States initially promoted the concept of “peace in exchange for territories” and demanded an unconditional truce in Ukraine. Russia pushed for a full-fledged peace agreement, one that would include arms control provisions, discussion of NATO bases and, more broadly, the future architecture of European security. Ultimately, the talks showed that the White House is willing to listen to Moscow’s arguments. The key outcome of the Alaska meeting seems to be a shift in the U.S. position: Washington dropped its firm demand for an immediate cessation of hostilities and agreed to prioritize discussions of a more comprehensive agreement. The potential scope of such a deal, if it ever materializes, opens the door for talks about the so-called “new Yalta,” implying the division of spheres of influence in Europe. It appears that Russia’s strategy in the negotiations was to keep Trump in a relatively neutral position by aligning with his peacemaking aspirations. At the same time, they talked not only about ending the war, but also about restoring economic ties with the West, lifting sanctions, and welcoming Russia back as a recognized intrinsic player in the global and European security architecture. The American approach was driven by a desire to secure rapid de-escalation and, failing that, to shift responsibility onto Ukraine and its European allies. This strategy allows Washington to deflect potential criticism over making excessive concessions to Moscow, while also drawing European capitals into sharing the political risk in the event of either a ceasefire under unfavorable conditions for Kyiv or the decision to prolong the conflict. Yesterday in Washington, the Ukrainian president and European leaders were presented with the “Alaska deal”. At its core, the proposal involves significant concessions from Ukraine and Europe in exchange for ending the war and opening a new chapter in U.S.-Russia relations. For Kyiv, the scenario is deeply painful, as it entails territorial compromises and the formal acceptance of irreversible losses. The proposed framework is also highly problematic for the European Union. While Brussels is reluctant to openly challenge a U.S.-led peace initiative, accepting the deal and conceding to Russia would effectively legitimize a new geopolitical reality in which the Helsinki principles on the inviolability of borders in Europe are, in practice, abandoned. Based on the results of yesterday's negotiations, it can be said that Zelensky and the Europeans failed to significantly change Trump's opinion. He apparently remains committed to the idea of a comprehensive peace agreement without a preliminary ceasefire, effectively allowing Ukraine to lose its territories. For clarity, the White House even hung a map of the current front line. The lack of strong objections from Ukraine and Europe on this issue demonstrates a certain weakness in their negotiating positions. Meanwhile, Zelensky, careful to avoid making any specific commitments in public, insisted on a personal meeting with Putin and received a kind of agreement after Trump’s call to the Kremlin. Now, however, the Ukrainian president finds himself in a vulnerable position: either accept peace on the Kremlin’s terms or risk derailing the peace process and losing American support. Judging by the limited information leaked to the press after the meetings in Alaska and Washington, work is in full swing behind closed doors. In any case, the room for maneuver for Kyiv and its European partners is narrowing rapidly. The basic parameters of the peace deal between Trump and Putin have already been outlined and mutually agreed upon, so Zelensky and EU leaders will either have to abandon this framework at the last minute or accept a deal that secures Putin’s geopolitical gains. Despite the ongoing maneuvers and evasions of all parties involved, the prospect of a peaceful agreement in the coming weeks appears more likely than ever. The possible structure of future documents could be as follows:

Russia-Ukraine: a comprehensive peace treaty, including security guarantees for both nations.
Russia-Europe: lifting sanctions, restoring economic cooperation, and discussing a new continental security architecture.
Russia-United States: agreements on strategic stability, arms control, global security, and the development of bilateral relations. Joint economic projects will play a key role, as they could trigger the lifting of sanctions by the US, followed by Europe.

For Moldova and its ruling leadership, such a development is deeply concerning. If these agreements are formalized, Eastern Europe risks assuming the role of a “strategic buffer”, a zone where Moscow and Western capitals seek to balance competing interests. In effect, this would mark a return to the Yalta-era logic of dividing spheres of influence – a framework Europe tried to abandon after the Cold War. As we see, the Russian-Ukrainian confrontation has reached another decisive point. Common sense dictates that it must be approached with the utmost responsibility, as the current window of opportunity could close indefinitely. The scenario of reaching a basic peace agreement in August or September should not be overestimated. It can certainly be considered a realistic scenario, even if it risks signaling the beginning of Zelensky’s political decline and the consolidation of Russia’s strategic advantage. Despite the diplomatic breakthrough between the U.S. and Russia, there is still no certainty that the war in Ukraine is entering its final stage. The coming weeks will see an intense diplomatic marathon aimed at preparing for meetings between Trump, Putin, and Zelensky. Only then will it become clearer whether all sides are truly ready to bring this long-standing conflict to an end.