Ukraine Peace Talks: Why Russian Demands Cannot Deliver Sustainable Peace

Introduction

There is no debate that the world’s attention is now on the “Ukraine Peace Talks.” Following the meeting between Presidents Trump and Putin in Alaska, and ahead of Trump’s upcoming meeting with President Zelensky and a delegation of European leaders, it is crucial to examine Russia’s demands and explain why they cannot provide the basis for a sustainable peace.

What Do We Know?

Very little official information has emerged from the Alaska summit. Both presidents shared vague statements during their joint press conference, but several details are telling. The meeting was cut short after the initial closed-door session, which included only the presidents and two senior advisors each. The planned working lunch between the wider delegations was cancelled. No ceasefire was reached. Trump did not call Zelensky immediately afterwards. Both leaders departed Alaska straight away.
Over the following days, however, reports began to circulate about Russia’s proposed terms:

• Full control over Donetsk and Luhansk, with the complete withdrawal of Ukrainian forces.
• A frozen frontline in Zaporizhzhia and Kherson.
• Recognition of Russian as a second official language in Ukraine.
• Freedom for the Russian Orthodox Church to operate across Ukraine.
• Ukraine to renounce NATO membership, in exchange for limited U.S. security guarantees.
• Written assurances from Putin to Europe that Russia will not launch further aggression – an unsettling echo of the Munich Agreement of 1938, when Hitler and Chamberlain signed a pledge of “eternal peace.”

In exchange, Ukraine would regain some territories in Sumy and Kharkiv, and Russia would halt further advances in Zaporizhzhia. From this, several conclusions can be drawn:

1. Putin’s tactical skill – Putin once again demonstrated his mastery of diplomacy, exploiting Trump’s obsession with personal legacy and a Nobel Peace Prize to advance Russian goals. Ukrainian and European negotiators should take note.
2. Trump’s priorities – Trump appears more focused on presenting himself as a “great
   negotiator” than on building a lasting settlement. By the end of the summit, it was clear that Putin had steered him into adopting a pro-Russian position. Instead of “Making America Great Again,” Trump risks making the U.S. another Russian proxy.
3. Putin’s determination – Russia’s priority remains conquest, not compromise. The absence of economic advisors at the meeting suggests the talks broke down quickly and that Moscow has no interest in economic incentives if they come at the cost of territorial ambition.
4. Ukraine’s red lines – President Zelensky has repeatedly stated that Ukraine cannot and will not give up territory, both for constitutional reasons and national survival.

Meanwhile, divisions inside Trump’s administration have already surfaced. One advisor, Mr. Witkoff, suggested Ukraine would have to cede Donbas. Secretary of State Rubio, however, insisted that no one is pressuring Ukraine into such a settlement and that any peace agreement would look very different.

Why Would Such an Agreement Fail?

1. Strategic Advantage for Russia
   By acquiring Donetsk and Luhansk outright and holding their positions in Kherson and
   Zaporizhzhia, Russia would gain heavily fortified territory and access to critical resources, while leaving Ukraine militarily weakened. Such a pause in fighting could last less than a year before Moscow resumed offensives from far stronger positions.
2. Unchanged Objectives
   Russia’s goal of conquering Ukraine will not change. A temporary agreement would simply buy the Kremlin time to rebuild, restore economic ties with Europe and the U.S., and accumulate the resources needed for a renewed war.
3. Internal Destabilisation of Ukraine
   Allowing Russian media, political influence, and the church to operate freely across Ukraine would give Moscow powerful tools to undermine Ukrainian democracy and sovereignty from within. The risk is that Ukraine could be transformed into another Belarus: a nominally independent state under Russian control. Even though this scenario looks unlikely due to the strong civic consciousness in Ukraine, Russian influence operations would still be a great threat.
4. Economic Leverage for Moscow
   Any reduction in sanctions would provide Russia with vast profits and renewed international influence, strengthening its war economy while making it harder for Europe to reimpose penalties in the future.
5. Resource and Logistical Control
   Holding Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, and Crimea would give Russia access to rare earth metals vital for military production, plus a strategic base in Crimea to dominate the Black Sea. This combination would increase Moscow’s independence and resilience against Western pressure.

What Next?

The path forward is uncertain. The upcoming meeting between Zelensky, Trump, and European leaders in Washington will be crucial. Kyiv and Europe will argue that Putin cannot be pressured into peace through economic measures or symbolic assurances, as his determination to continue the war is absolute.

What is clear is that the war is far from over. European governments have already made clear that they will maintain their military and financial support for Ukraine, regardless of U.S. hesitation. With Ukraine and Europe ramping up military production, Trump “has no cards” to push Kyiv into concessions.

For the United States, this moment is pivotal. The Trump administration must decide whether to sustain support for Ukraine and reassert America’s role as a global leader, or to retreat into isolationism, leaving Europe exposed and damaging U.S. credibility worldwide. A withdrawal of U.S. support would not only embolden Russia but also send a signal to other rivals: China over Taiwan, Israel and Iran in the Middle East, and potentially even India and Pakistan.

Conclusion

The Alaska summit underscored the dangers of pursuing peace at any price. Russia’s demands are designed not to resolve the war but to reposition itself for further aggression. Accepting them would embolden Moscow, weaken Ukraine, and destabilise Europe.

A genuine and sustainable peace must be built on Ukraine’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, and enforceable international guarantees. Anything less would repeat the mistakes of Munich in 1938, sacrificing long-term security for short-term illusion.

For Washington, this is more than a European issue. It is a test of American leadership and the durability of the international order. Should the U.S. step back, the consequences will reverberate across the globe, from Eastern Europe to the Middle East to the Indo-Pacific. The stakes, therefore, are nothing less than the credibility of the rules-based world order itself.