The agenda of the meeting is expected to have the war in Ukraine as its main axis, but it will hardly be limited to it. Issues such as nuclear arms control, the situation in the Middle East, Iran, global trade and sanctions are also likely to be put under negotiation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The ground for the meeting was prepared by the US special envoy, Steve Witkoff, who had direct talks with Putin in Moscow.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Trump described the progress as “extraordinary,” marking a marked shift in tone from the tough rhetoric he had adopted in recent weeks toward Russia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Retraction or maneuver – The recasting of the American stance<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The Trump turn has sparked speculation. One possible explanation is that Moscow \u201cbacked down\u201d under the threat of secondary sanctions against countries that buy Russian oil \u2014 notably China, India, and Brazil.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, Putin\u2019s subsequent stance is inconsistent with this hypothesis. The Russian president now seems less willing to respond positively to American pressure, knowing that Washington\u2019s policy can change drastically with each election cycle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n After three years of harsh sanctions, Moscow seems to be calculating that the West has exhausted its truly effective pressure tools. The war is now seen by the Kremlin as an existential conflict.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On the other hand, it is not excluded that Trump is the one preparing to make concessions. The failure of his threats to impose 100% tariffs on Russian oil imports from China and India has reinforced this impression. The two major Asian powers have not only rejected the legitimacy of these measures but have also shown that they will not compromise on issues of trade dominance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n China in particular remains in a position of strength \u2014 it has already proven that it can fight back, as it did earlier this year with restrictions on exports of rare earths, critical to American industry and defense, argues geopolitical analyst Eldar Mamedov.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Strategic Risk – China-India Unification and Strengthening the BRICS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Washington\u2019s simultaneous pressure on Beijing and New Delhi threatens to bring the two countries closer together, which would be a strategic disaster for the United States.<\/p>\n\n\n\n After years of trying to reach out to India as a counterweight to Chinese influence, American policy is in danger of losing its geopolitical footing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The consequences are already apparent: Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is preparing for his first visit to China in seven years, while India\u2019s national security adviser is meeting with Putin the day after the US tariff announcements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At the same time, Brazil, through President Lula, is calling on the BRICS to discuss a common position against the US measures. The potential tightening of relations between China, India, Russia and Brazil constitutes a geostrategic shift of historic proportions.<\/p>\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Realistic Options – Compromise or Prolong the War?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Faced with this impasse, a deal with Russia may offer Trump a way out. However, any progress will require significant concessions from Washington, especially on Moscow’s key demands:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Statements by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who highlighted “territorial issues” as the central axis of the negotiations, indicate a possible intention for compromise. Until recently, Washington had only accepted the annexation of Crimea as a de facto reality. Rubio’s avoidance of specific regions raises reasonable suspicions of a change in stance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ukraine\u2019s Position and Western Pressure<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Ukraine, of course, rejects such concessions, with European support on its side.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But the deterioration of its military position on the front and the political mistakes of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, such as the crackdown on its anti-corruption authorities, confirm the pressure being exerted by the United States on Kiev.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One scenario involves a \u201cterritory swap\u201d compromise: the withdrawal of Russian forces from some areas in exchange for recognition of Russian control in others.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Such an agreement would require a full and immediate ceasefire on the Russian side \u2014 not partial, not selective. In return, Ukraine would retain territory it still controls, while Russia would gain much-needed international recognition for territory it already holds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This model, although difficult, could serve as a basis for broader peace talks, avoiding the complete dismemberment of Ukraine and limiting the war damage on both sides.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Alternative Scenarios – Frozen Conflict or No Deal<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In the absence of an agreement on a territorial settlement, a more limited outcome of the summit could be the achievement of a temporary ceasefire, which Ukraine has already accepted but Russia has so far rejected.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While it would not mean the end of the war, such an agreement could halt hostilities and save thousands of lives. However, a ceasefire without a political solution would create a \u201cfrozen conflict,\u201d with unpredictable consequences: military instability, the constant threat of renewed fighting, and a protracted humanitarian crisis. History has shown that such conflicts are extremely vulnerable to future outbreaks of violence \u2014 from Abkhazia to Nagorno Karabakh.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is, of course, a worst-case scenario: no substantive agreement at all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In such a case, the Trump-Putin meeting may be limited to formal declarations of cooperation in other areas, such as nuclear control, the situation in Iran, or security in the Middle East. But without progress on the Ukrainian issue, no other development can be considered a success.<\/p>\n\n\n\n How close is the sinking?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The meeting itself is hanging by a thread. A bloody incident on the battlefield or even diplomatic tension over the format of the summit could blow it up before it even begins. It has already been reported that Trump has reportedly proposed\u2014and then withdrawn\u2014the presence of Ukrainian President Zelensky at the meeting, something Putin has reportedly categorically rejected.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The failure of the summit will have very serious consequences: an escalation of the fighting, increased Russia-West tension, and the crushing of any hope for a political solution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n After three years of war, with social and economic fatigue in Ukraine reaching its limits, the failure of this effort will be interpreted as a strategic impasse and the political inability of the great powers to impose peace.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is no coincidence that, according to a recent Gallup poll, 70% of Ukrainians are in favor of direct negotiations, even without the full liberation of the occupied territories. This shows that society, tired of blood and uncertainty, desires stability \u2014 even with painful compromises.<\/p>\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n A High-Stakes Meeting Between War and Peace<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The upcoming Trump-Putin summit is perhaps the most defining bilateral meeting of the decade. At a time when geopolitical relationships are rapidly shifting and the international order is being tested, the two leaders are faced with a choice: endless conflict or a difficult but necessary diplomatic way out of the vicious cycle of war.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The success of the meeting depends not only on the leaders\u2019 declarations or the proposals on paper. It depends on whether there is political will and strategic foresight \u2014 the ability to overcome the present costs for the sake of a sustainable peace. If they fail, the world will not be just a spectator \u2014 it will be the victim of their failure.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" This week is expected to see the first long-awaited meeting between US President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin, a meeting that…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":25555,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-25554","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25554","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=25554"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25554\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":25559,"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25554\/revisions\/25559"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/25555"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=25554"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=25554"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=25554"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/image-54.png\")
<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/image-56-1024x576.png\")
<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n