Proposed Trump–Putin Talks in Alaska: Territorial Exchange on the Table

What’s Being Proposed?

• Meeting Confirmed: U.S. President Donald Trump will meet Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on 15 August 2025 to discuss the Ukraine war.

  
  

• Territorial Swap Suggested: Trump publicly indicated that “some swapping of territory” might be part of a peace deal.

  
  

• Washington Post and other outlets suggest the swap would involve Ukraine ceding Donbas (Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts) and possibly Crimea, while gaining Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts.

  
  

• Ukrainian Resistance: President Zelenskyy has firmly rejected any territorial concessions and condemned the idea of negotiating without Ukraine’s involvement.

What Does “Entire Donbas” Mean in Practice?

• The term “Donbas” generally includes Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, encompassing both contested and Ukrainian-controlled towns and cities such as Sviatohirsk, Sloviansk, Kramatorsk, Kostiantynivka and Pokrovsk.

  
  

• Transferring full control would require Ukraine to relinquish cities that are still firmly under her administration and symbolic of her territorial integrity.

The Ukrainian front line shown over the five oblasts where the principal fighting is taking place, with the division between oblasts shown in dark grey lines. Tremendous fighting is taking place between Pokrovsk and Sloviansk, and it is not obvious how a "land swap" could easily be executed under such circumstances.

Practical Challenges of a Land Swap

1. Military Complexity: The frontline is not a straightforward static line. Both sides have established deep, layered defensive structures—fortified positions, minefields, anti-vehicle trenches, and marshland barriers—which cannot be reversed overnight. Relevant bridges have been destroyed. It could take months or even years to reverse these military fortifications.

   
   

2. Force Withdrawal & Peacekeeping:

   
   

   • A safe extraction of forces from each side would require a robust, neutral international peacekeeping presence along the new border.

     
     

   • But finding consensus on peacekeepers—whether UN, NATO-aligned, or non-western—is politically fraught.

     
     

   • Enforcement amidst minefields and manpower discrepancies could prove impossible without massive international commitments.

   
   

3. Human Rights & Demographic Implications:

   
   

   • Such a swap would affect hundreds of thousands of civilians, many of whom might oppose changing control.

     
     

   • There would likely be substantial displacement, ethnic tensions and legal disputes over citizenship, property, and reparations.

   
   

Feasibility Assessment & Political Realities

• Momentum for Peace: Political pressure in Moscow and Washington is urging a quick resolution—but only between Trump and Putin, with Ukraine excluded. That alone undermines legitimacy.

  
  

• Risk of Frozen Conflict: A territory swap could institutionalise the status quo while freezing fighting—a temporary relief but not a resolution.

  
  

• Precedent & Legality: Forcing Ukraine to trade war-weakened territory sets an alarming precedent in international law.

Will a Land Swap Agreement Deliver Peace?

A territorial exchange might seem an expedient fix, but the practical, legal and moral obstacles are staggering. With entrenched defences, enormous population displacement risks, and no credible enforcement mechanism, a “land swap” is more fantasy than peace blueprint.

Absent Ukraine’s involvement or agreement, any deal risks becoming an imposed partition—not a negotiated peace. Far from resolving the conflict, it threatens to bite off pieces of Ukraine’s sovereignty while offering nothing as durable as peace.

A true resolution must involve Ukraine at the table—and rest on principles that safeguard sovereignty, not undermine it.