The Great Game in Alaska: Geography of an Unconventional Summit
Farshid Bagherian, in an interview with the Foreign Relations Strategic Council website, noted: “Choosing Alaska for the Trump-Putin summit is not merely geographical. Symbolically, it marks the convergence of U.S. and Russian borders and historically recalls a colossal 19th-century deal: Russia’s sale of Alaska to the United States.” According to the analyst, “Such symbolism may subconsciously steer minds toward a ‘territorial deal’—something Moscow has effectively placed on the table with its recent proposal to Trump.”
Bagherian emphasized that “Putin is a master of wielding symbols in foreign policy. By selecting the stage and timing, he aims to convey political messages before formal negotiations.” He added, “Moscow knows Trump craves projecting an image of historic diplomatic achievements globally and domestically. Combining these motivations could pave the way for a grand deal—though not necessarily a sustainable end to the war.” The analyst further noted that “Alaska’s selection, coupled with Trump’s waiver of secondary sanctions deadlines against Russia, signals to European capitals that the White House may accommodate Moscow’s demands.”

Agreement and Collusion Scenarios: From Minimalism to Frontline Solidification
Bagherian outlined four primary scenarios for ending the Ukraine war via the Alaska talks:

1. Minimal Agreement: A temporary ceasefire, partial sanctions relief, and formal negotiations—without altering borders. While preferable for Europe/Ukraine in preserving territorial integrity, Putin would likely reject it as a non-“victory” absent territorial gains.
2. Territorial Exchange: Ukraine cedes eastern territories; Russia withdraws from southern regions like Zaporizhzhia or Kherson. This lets Trump frame the deal as a “win-win,” but rewards Moscow and risks normalizing such models.
3. Solidifying Current Frontlines: De facto acceptance of Russian control over occupied areas without formal border agreements. This creates gray zones akin to frozen conflicts, perpetuating re-escalation risks.
4. Tacit Washington-Moscow Collusion: Prioritizing U.S.-Russia competition with China while sidelining Ukraine. Bagherian deems this geopolitically perilous, signaling that smaller nations’ interests are expendable in great-power rivalries. Scenarios 2 and 3 are considered most likely, aligning with Trump’s “swift achievement” and Putin’s “preserving gains” logics.

Zelenskyy’s Dilemma: Exclusion from the Negotiating Table
Bagherian stressed that “excluding or marginalizing Ukraine in Alaska is not merely tactical but strategically consequential.” He warned that violating the principle of national self-determination—a pillar of modern international law—undermines the legitimacy of post-WWII norms.
“Even if Zelenskyy is belatedly invited,” Bagherian explained, “his symbolic presence—whether sharing a room with Putin—matters profoundly. A delayed or restricted invitation would signal that key decisions were made without Ukraine.” The analyst believes “Putin anticipates this exact scenario: demonstrating Moscow can negotiate with the world’s top power while the war’s primary party is absent. Domestically, this would be touted as a diplomatic victory; internationally, as fracturing the Western front.”

Geopolitical Consequences: Europe on Alert

According to Bagherian, “Any agreement formed without respecting the red lines of Ukraine and Europe will have long-term consequences for the balance of power: First, the use of force to change borders would be redefined as a justifiable tool in international politics. Second, the Transatlantic alliance would face internal pressures and mutual distrust. Third, other actors may also take bolder, similar actions in their surrounding environments.”

The senior international affairs analyst emphasizes that “For this reason, Europe has intensified coordinated diplomatic efforts in recent weeks. The calls by the leaders of France, Germany, Britain, and other EU members with Washington are to ensure that any future agreement includes security guarantees and respect for Ukraine’s territorial integrity.” Bagherian concludes by warning that “If the Alaska summit results in an agreement that appears as a ‘victory’ in the short term, but disrupts the balance of power in the long term, this will not only be a costly legacy for America and its allies, but will also plunge the international order into a period of structural instability.”