US Politics
Donald Trump must not reward Vladimir Putin’s aggression
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it’s investigating the financials of Elon Musk’s pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, ‘The A Word’, which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.
Read more
Donald Trump understands symbolism and imperial delusions, so Alaska is a fitting location for his meeting with Vladimir Putin on Friday. The US president will know that in Mr Putin’s eyes, Alaska ought to be Russian territory, sold in a moment of weakness by Alexander II.
Just as, in Mr Trump’s mind, Canada and Greenland ought to be part of the United States.
The theatre of the summit, then, is all set. But some of the cast will be missing. By agreeing to a meeting of just the two of them, Mr Trump appears to be convening a conspiracy to carve up Ukraine in the absence of its leader, Volodymyr Zelensky.
This impression was reinforced by Mr Trump talking breezily about Russia and Ukraine “swapping” territory as part of a peace deal. To Ukrainians – or indeed to anyone who respects the principle of self-determination and the rule of law – this means Mr Putin giving up territory that he has seized by force in exchange for being rewarded for his aggression by gaining further territory that he has not yet been able to steal.
No wonder Mr Zelensky has his doubts about this meeting. The Ukrainian president has made it clear that he will discuss anything with anyone anywhere, but what he will not do, rightly, is agree to the dismemberment of his country as a condition of talks.
Without Mr Zelensky, it is not clear what this summit can achieve, except to demonstrate ever more clearly to the world and to Mr Trump that it is Mr Putin who is the obstacle to peace.
The other cast members who will be missing in Alaska are Ukraine’s allies in Europe, what Sir Keir Starmer calls the “coalition of the willing”. But the Trump administration has at least ensured a side negotiation takes place, with a meeting of national security advisers convened on Saturday by JD Vance, the US vice-president, and David Lammy, the British foreign secretary, at Chevening in Kent.
Meanwhile, Mr Zelensky has been canvassing support from European allies, holding phone calls on Saturday with Sir Keir, as well as leaders from Estonia, Denmark and France, including conversations about Ukraine’s progress “towards EU membership”.
Recently, Mr Trump has shown some signs of recognising that Mr Putin does not want peace in Ukraine. He said that he had had enough of the Russian leader assuring him on the phone that he was ready to negotiate, only to discover the next day that Russian missiles had hit a hospital or a school in Ukraine. He set a deadline for the imposition of further sanctions on Russia, which passed this weekend with no measures announced. By agreeing to the Alaska meeting, it looks as if Mr Putin has strung Mr Trump along – again.
We have no way of seeing into Mr Trump’s heart, so we cannot tell if his appeasement of Mr Putin is a diplomatic ploy to allow the Russian leader to agree a deal that saves face, or if it arises from the genuine admiration for a strong leader. But Mr Trump’s motive does not matter – except that, if he is as fixated on the idea of a Nobel Peace Prize as he is said to be, he should be unlikely to win the prize by securing peace through Ukraine’s surrender.
If it is beginning to dawn on Mr Trump that Mr Putin wants the war to continue, then that can only be a good thing, because it will then be clear exactly who is responsible for prolonging the bloodshed. It is not Mr Zelensky or the Ukrainian people who started this war or who are keeping it going.
A recent Gallup poll suggested that a large majority of Ukrainians want a negotiated end to the fighting. They know that this means yielding territory, however bitterly they may resent it. They are willing to pay a price for peace.
Mr Trump must ensure that Mr Putin is made to pay a price as well. The Russian aggressor must not be rewarded.
