Putin–Trump Summit in Alaska and The Trump – Zelenskyy Meeting in The White House

2. The Trump – Zelenskyy Meeting (August 18, 2023)

Media Coverage and Responses

• The Guardian calls Zelenskyy’s appearance a relative win—his first (and instructively public) meeting with Trump since their contentious February encounter was cordial and even praise-worthy, without dire diplomatic consequences. .The Guardian
• The New York Post emphasized Trump’s post-meeting optimism, and later announced proposed future talks—and both a direct Zelenskyy – Putin meeting, and a trilateral meeting which involved Trump. New York Post
• The Washington Post laid out a possible emerging peace framework: security assurances akin to NATO’s Article 5, balanced by land offers from Ukraine—most likely including land in Donetsk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia region—while making it clear that the path forward remains uncertain. The Washington Post

• The Daily Beast is doubtful: theorizes that Trump’s own self-proposed, self-endorsed “peace” was all part of Trump’s continuing self-promotion and “whimsical shifts,” and warns that the idiosyncratic nature of Trump’s approach will ultimately reduce any potential substantive peace to mere hollow rhetoric. The Daily Beast

• The Wall Street Journal reports optimism: Zelenskyy agreed to Trump’s proposed face-to-face talks with Putin, suggesting that some of the diplomatic tone has improved, and it is possible that a pathway to further exchanges has opened. Wall Street Journal

On-the-ground, highlights & expert commentary

• ABC Australia quotes Zelenskyy positively: “There were no ‘unacceptable decisions’ in the meeting,” which allows for more potential room for negotiations. German Chancellor Merz envisages a Zelenskyy–Putin meeting in a few weeks, leading to the trilateral meeting. ABC

• Foreign Policy also notes that Trump seemed more gracious this time around, shared a confidence about the peace process, and the trilateral meeting was intended as a ‘powerful opportunity.’ Foreign Policy

• Local Historian, John Baick, of Western Massachusetts, provides a much harsher critique—saying nothing was accomplished to demonstrate the meeting was in of itself working toward peace, and that discussions about other political items seemed to overshadow the meeting itself as the meeting took place mid-Russian aggression. https://www.westernmassnews.com

• Kyiv Post’s commentary calls out the meeting itself for not really providing any substance or important outcomes, even though the optics of the meeting were polite, often calling out direct diplomatic form, rather than important content. .Kyiv Post