The upcoming summit between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin in Alaska has drawn criticism for excluding Ukrainian President Zelenskyy. Analysts view this arrangement as a violation of the principle that Ukraine should be involved in discussions about its future. Concerns persist regarding both leaders’ backgrounds, with Putin seen as a manipulator and Trump criticized for his unpredictable diplomacy. Zelenskyy lamented that talks about Ukraine without its presence are futile. The meeting may reinforce Putin’s position while sidelining Ukraine’s sovereignty, raising fears of unbalanced agreements detrimental to Ukraine.
Here are some questions that provide a little background and raise issues that are important given that we have two criminals as heads of their respective countries meeting to talk about war one of them started, while the other one could have a positive influence to help Ukraine continue its resistance to the aggressor.
Here we go.
Could Putin be arrested while in Alaska?
Yes. There is a warrant out for his arrest. The International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin in March 2023 for alleged war crimes related to the deportation of Ukrainian children The ICC relies on its 125 member states to enforce warrants. Russia and the U.S. are not ICC members, meaning they neither recognize its authority nor are legally bound to enforce its warrants .
That’s why Alaska—non?ICC territory—makes Putin relatively safe from arrest. Past visits, like to Mongolia (an ICC member), show how member states are technically obliged to arrest him—but enforcement is often resisted .
Bottom line: Putin couldn’t be legally arrested in Alaska under ICC rules because the U.S. is not a party to the ICC.
As a person with a felony conviction, what travel restrictions might Trump face?
Entry bans: Many countries—including several G7 nations, Australia, Israel, India, New?Zealand, Taiwan, China, and others—either prohibit or tightly restrict entry for individuals with felony convictions .
Possible exceptions: In some cases, he may apply for temporary waivers, exemptions, or special visas. For instance, non?violent felons have been granted such allowances, though failing to disclose convictions during visa applications can lead to denial . When he went to Canada this year, he needed a waiver to get in same thing happened to George Bush. He had a DUI which normally prevents entry to Canada.
Domestic impact: His felony conviction also affects his civil rights—like gun ownership and potentially voting—depending on state laws where he resides or is convicted .
Bottom line: Trump’s international travel could face hurdles. Some countries may deny him entry outright, while others might offer waivers. Domestically, certain rights could be restricted. But, since this not an international trip, Trump can land in Alaska, and not worry about such legal issues.
Since Putin and Trump will meet to talk about the invasion of Ukraine without President Zalinskyy, how do political scientists, law abiding prosecutors, and American citizens see this arrangement.
The meeting is seen by many scholars and Western leaders as a violation of the “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine” principle, a diplomatic norm asserting that Ukraine must be included in any discussions determining its future. This principle has been endorsed by U.S. officials like Secretary of State Antony Blinken, NATO leadership, and Ukrainian authorities since the 2022 invasion began.
European leaders are particularly critical. France, Germany, the U.K., Italy, Poland, and Finland issued statements reaffirming: “The path to peace in Ukraine cannot be decided without Ukraine,” underscoring the unacceptable nature of sidelining Kyiv.
The United Nations has repeatedly reaffirmed Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, particularly via resolutions like ES?11/4 in 2022, which declared Russia’s annexations invalid under international law. Does Trump know this? You can bet that Putin does.
As a citizen in touch with others where I live, the meeting without representation from Ukraine is not a step toward peace, but a meeting that normalizes the invading country, and will at the end of the meeting show Trump’s weakness.
What does Putin want from the summit?
Putin wants nothing but more. He has already indicated that he requires Ukraine’s neutrality, demilitarization, recognition of annexations, and an end to NATO aspirations. But Putin also seen this meeting as an opportunity to end his diplomatic isolation.
What does Trump want?
Trump has imposed a deadline for a Russian ceasefire (he’s done this since getting back to the White House), threatening sanctions and tariffs to compel compliance. His goal: halt the war and reduce further casualties. But has said that a peace deal may involve “some swapping of territories to the betterment of both” sides. What ever his goals, one seems to be the Nobel Prize.
Can we trust Putin and Trump given their backgrounds and motivation for this get-together.
On Putin
Manipulation and strategic games: Ukrainian analysts warn that Putin is a “masterful manipulator”, primed to exploit Trump’s style of personal diplomacy. One noted that after another summit, “nothing will change about the war in Ukraine after Trump feels Putin out in Alaska.”
A “peace trap”? Many observers call the summit a ploy. As ABC News puts it, this may be “Putin’s latest—and potentially very successful—gambit to defuse Trump’s frustration with him,” offering a ceasefire as a façade while Russia consolidates gains.
On Trump
Predictability and flattery: His previous behavior—in Helsinki and other meetings—raises alarm. The Guardian warns: “Trump alone in a room with Putin is a recipe for disaster,” given how he has sided with Putin over U.S. intelligence before.
Words over action: Trump issued “very severe consequences” warnings if Russia continues its aggression—but his incremental follow-through (such as delayed sanctions) undermines his credibility.
On Both Leaders
Criminal baggage & absent accountability: This meeting is only possible because Putin is shielded from arrest by meeting in a non?ICC country—namely, the U.S.—and Trump has shown little regard for international legal norms.
A summit without Ukraine equals a get?out?of?jail?free card: The talks as not just excluding Ukraine—but rewarding an aggressor. One opinion piece labels the summit “a risky peace gamble,” warning that Trump’s pattern of informal diplomacy could result in premature or unbalanced agreements that leave Ukraine unprotected.
What has President Zelenskyy said about this “summit.”
Here are a few statements that he has made.
“Talk about us, without us, will not work.” This is a core area of concern. For Trump and Putin to talk about Ukraine is absurd.
Ceding land to Russia is not only unconstitutional, it will pave the way for future invasions.
Zelenskyy believes that Putin is “bluffing” about intentions to end the war. Zelenskyy sees the summit as a diplomatic victory for Putin.
What was the aftermath of the last Putin/Trump closed door meeting (in Helsinki, 2018)?
The big story was that Trump sided with Putin on Russian interference in Trump’s first election. He said this about Russian interference: “I don’t see any reason why it would be Russia?” “I have great confidence in my intelligence people,” Trump said, “But I will tell you, President Putin was extremely powerful in his denial today.”
Putin is known for using intelligence and diplomatic tactics to assert influence, especially over leaders like Trump, whose approach has proven malleable in the past. Though Trump has threatened “very severe consequences” if Russia doesn’t agree to peace, many remain skeptical, pointing to his unpredictable diplomacy.
How does trumps phone call with Zelenskyy that led to Trump first impeachment play a role in trumps feelings about Ukraine and an influence with Putin?
In July 2019, Trump pressed Zelenskyy to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden, effectively conditioning nearly $400 million in U.S. military aid on that demand. The call became the basis for his first impeachment, charged with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The transcript revealed a quid pro quo: a White House meeting and aid were tied to political favors—raising deep concerns about foreign policy being used for domestic political gain.
Their relationship remains strained. In a recent meeting in the White House deteriorated—Trump and VP Vance reportedly viewed Zelenskyy as ungrateful despite continued U.S. assistance. It was a planned attack on the president of Ukraine.
Trump’s 2019 call with Zelenskyy—and the ensuing impeachment—has had a lasting effect. It typifies a transactional, personalistic approach to diplomacy that erodes trust and undermines Ukraine’s standing. As a result, analysts worry that Putin could leverage that history to shape the Alaska summit in ways favorable to Russia, especially if Trump pursues a deal as a personal win rather than a principled peace.
You must be logged in to post a comment.