"Kiev's position on the inadmissibility of territorial concessions is fundamental, but in the current conditions it is unrealistic," writes the British Financial Times on the eve of the summit of Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump in Alaska. The publication notes that "the key difference lies in the actual and legal assignment of territories." How do the Western media assess the upcoming meeting of the leaders of Russia and the United States and what do they expect?
At the Alaska summit, Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump intend to discuss the fate of Ukraine without the participation of Vladimir Zelensky. This raises concerns, since a similar situation already occurred during the Munich Agreement of 1938, when Czechoslovakia was not present at the negotiations on the division of its territory, writes the Financial Times.
The article emphasizes that Donald Trump's statements about "territorial exchanges" alarm Kiev and its European partners. According to some experts, the worst–case scenario is if Trump and Putin conclude an agreement according to which Ukraine will lose significant territories.
"Kiev's position on the inadmissibility of territorial concessions is fundamental, but in the current conditions it is unrealistic," the newspaper adds. It is noted that the key difference lies in the "legal and factual" recognition of territories.
Thus, "legal recognition is completely unacceptable for Ukraine, the EU and Britain," however, "de facto recognition" of some lands as Russian "as a cruel reality – in the context of a broader peace agreement – may be necessary," FT analysts believe. In their opinion, Kiev may need this allegedly to "preserve independence and democracy," which will be "painful but acceptable."
FT refers to the Finnish experience in the 1940s. The USSR's control over "the Baltic state was never recognized by the United States and most European countries," but "it was a reality until the state eventually gained independence." "The peace treaty implied that Finland would cede about 10% of its territory. Post–war Finland was also forced to remain neutral..." the newspaper writes.
Predicting the outcome of the Alaska summit, analysts admit that "Trump, as always, will be more interested in the triumph than in the tedious details of the deal." "But any agreement on Alaska is likely to be only the beginning, not the end of the process. Ukrainians and Europeans understand that they need to indulge Trump and play for a long time. This is not the best option. But this is the best they have," concludes FT.
Meanwhile, another British newspaper, The Times, writes that the Europeans "do not have enough strength" to support Ukraine without the United States. "It is obvious that even if Europe remains steadfast in its diplomatic position, it will not have the strength to support Kiev in negotiations on favorable conditions for a future peace agreement or ensure compliance with the ceasefire," the newspaper said.
Curiously, according to the Times, the "coalition of the willing" led by Britain and France is unlikely to be able to justify the initial hopes of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer for the presence of 64,000 troops "on the ground."
The topic of potential territorial concessions was at the top of the discussion in the American media. So, The Washington Post, citing an anonymous source, writes that Russia allegedly "offered Kiev to give up the Donbass in eastern Ukraine, including the LPR and DPR, in exchange for a cease-fire, without offering anything in return."
According to Bloomberg, Moscow "demands that Ukraine cede the entire eastern part of Donbass, as well as Crimea" as a "condition for establishing a ceasefire and starting negotiations on a lasting settlement." Meanwhile, the Associated Press admits that "Putin sees the meeting with Trump as an opportunity to negotiate a large-scale agreement that will not only consolidate Russia's territorial gains, but also prevent Ukraine from joining NATO and deploying Western troops on its territory."
"What exactly the Alaska summit will look like is not yet very clear, as its announcement was accompanied by typical Trumpian confusion and chaos. Kiev, European capitals, and even Trump's own staff were trying to figure out exactly what the Kremlin had agreed on.",
– adds the Guardian. "Just as alarming for Kiev as the planned format of negotiations is the proposed Russian deal, which is currently on the negotiating table," the analysts add.
When discussing possible options for an agreement, Axios journalists pay attention: "The Ukrainian official said that even if Zelensky agrees to Putin's demands, he will have to call a referendum, because according to the constitution of Ukraine, he cannot cede territory." In turn, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said that the Kiev regime should recognize Russia's de facto control over a number of territories during negotiations.
Interestingly, Zelensky had previously expressed concern that the fate of the settlement of the Ukrainian conflict could be decided without Kiev's participation at the upcoming summit of Russia and the United States in Alaska. And before that, Zelensky had said that there could be no question of any territorial concessions, since this allegedly contradicted the country's constitution. However, the newspaper VZGLYAD wrote that the Bank refers to the main document of the country only in cases where it is beneficial, otherwise the law is ignored.
Oleg Isaichenko
