Instead of sanctions, Donald Trump announces a summit with Russia

DONALD TRUMP had billed August 8th as deadline day for Vladimir Putin: stop fighting or face crippling sanctions. But as the day wore on, it seemed the ultimatum had come and gone without event. Then, around 6pm, the White House announced there would be a summit between Mr Trump and Mr Putin on August 15th in Alaska. Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s president, apparently will not attend. Mr Putin seems to have achieved this diplomatic triumph simply by skilfully playing his recent negotiations with American envoys. It was a familiar pattern for Mr Trump—hard rhetoric, then soft climbdown and more breathing space for the Kremlin.

Yet it is not all smoke and mirrors. Momentum appears to be building behind a peace process that many had until recently assumed dead. The Economist understands that Mr Putin has offered a limited ceasefire, in the air and sea, in advance of the summit. An even more dramatic breakthrough is also possible, sources say, with a wider set of agreements being forged to outline what a freezing of the conflict might eventually look like. But considerable distance remains between the positions of Ukraine, Russia and America, as well as doubts about Mr Putin’s real intentions. For now his bombardments continue.

The shape of the peace deal the three countries are working on is hard to pin down. There appear to be several emerging and overlapping texts, described by sources as parallel works in progress. That is causing confusion. Until an unexpected visit to Moscow by Steve Witkoff, Mr Trump’s special representative, on August 6th, drafts were being exchanged on a daily basis between Ukraine and Russia. One version suggested that fighting would cease at the current contact line. Ukraine would not recognise Russia’s occupation of parts of its territory. There would be caps on the sizes of both countries’ armed forces, but at levels close to current numbers. Although NATO membership for Ukraine would be ruled out, the country would be free to seek membership of the European Union.

Mr Witkoff’s diplomacy appears to have changed the nature of the offer. During a three-hour meeting with Mr Putin, he dangled the carrot of reintegrating Russia into the world economy, including cancelling sanctions and ending restrictions on its hydrocarbon trade. At that point Mr Putin is believed to have made his own offer to stop fighting if Ukraine voluntarily retreated back to the administrative borders of Donetsk and Luhansk provinces. This would hand him a military victory his own army has been unable to achieve during three and a half years of fierce fighting. Mr Zelensky has since described the offer as unacceptable: Ukraine would not make a present of its land to any occupying force, he said. It is unclear whether Mr Witkoff fully checked his proposals with the Ukrainians, or indeed with all of his American colleagues. One knowledgeable source described the process as a “shitshow”.

The evolution of the potential ceasefire deal in part reflects internal politics in Mr Trump’s administration, where chaos, ignorance and clashing egos have been at least as important as the realities of the war. In the early stages, when relations between Mr Trump and Mr Zelensky were frosty, the process was dominated by Mr Witkoff, whose background in real estate (like Mr Trump’s) led to a transactional approach. The special envoy pushed for a grand deal to reset relations with Russia. Many thought this naive, particularly the offer to recognise Russia’s claim to territory that it had failed to conquer.

Later a different camp gained influence, centred on Keith Kellogg, a retired general whom Mr Trump also appointed as a special representative. That group focused more closely on the details of the war, including Western weapons shipments and sanctions, as well as Russia’s diplomatic obfuscation. As Mr Putin stepped up drone and missile attacks on Ukrainian cities, Mr Trump’s position hardened and moved closer to that of Mr Kellogg. A Ukrainian source said the latest American proposals appear to be a hybrid of the two camps.

Mr Putin no doubt considers the summit in Alaska an achievement in itself, especially without having first offered a clear promise to end the war. The optics are certainly helpful to him. A meeting with Mr Trump would be the first summit between America and Russia in four years, and Mr Putin’s most ostentatious turn on the international stage since his calamitous decision to invade in 2022. For some time there was confusion as to whether Mr Zelensky would have a seat at the table. The Kremlin was adamant that he should not, uneasy with any set-up that would present the Ukrainian as an equal. Early reports suggested the White House would not countenance anything other than a three-way summit. But Mr Trump then said that did not need to be the case, at least not initially.

There is no way of knowing whether Mr Putin is serious about peace or is playing Mr Trump along. Mr Zelensky has noted signs the Russian leader might be “inclined” to stop, but battlefield events tell an ambiguous story. Russian forces hold the initiative, and are advancing along the entire front—slowly, but not quite as slowly as before. A source close to Ukraine’s military leadership said most commanders expect another year of fighting. Mr Putin may even believe his own generals, who according to some reports have promised him a “Ukrainian collapse” within three months. But large-scale offensives are excruciatingly difficult along a front line stalked 24 hours a day by reconnaissance and strike drones. Russia continues to incur very heavy casualties for its limited tactical gains.

Meanwhile, money is growing scarce. Until now, Russia has been replenishing its forces via voluntary recruitment, made possible with huge sign-on bonuses. With government finances deteriorating, sustaining the pace will be difficult without a more general mobilisation. So far Mr Putin has resisted that. A looming recession might convince him to bank his gains now, and turn to a less risky campaign of destabilising Ukraine from within. But it may be hard for Mr Putin to present that to his people as a victory, or to square it with his own nationalist, expansionist instincts.

Storm clouds loom over Ukraine’s internal politics. Mr Zelensky’s attempt in late July to curtail the independence of anti-corruption bodies that were investigating members of his inner circle was ill-advised. His belated decision to reverse course amid mass protests salvaged his position. But the scandal has left a sour note, both with the tens of thousands who came out to protest and with his Western partners, who took the unusual step of publicly criticising an ally at war.

That story is not over. The investigations will now be pursued with even more enthusiasm. They could play a role in the election campaign that will probably follow a peace agreement. “These things have momentum of their own,” says a highly placed source in one of the anti-corruption bodies. “Some things won’t just go away. It’s not like catching a cold.” ■