M. Galeotti points out that one of the Russian president's main motives for meeting may not be the search for acceptable ceasefire conditions, but rather the desire to sour the recently seemingly improving relations between the US and Ukrainian presidents and to regain the image of an important and influential political player in the eyes of both the Russian population and the world.

The expert also discussed the guidelines for a peace agreement, which he believes is unlikely but theoretically possible, and its impact on the political future of Ukrainian President V. Zelensky.

"I don't think this summit will be a miraculous solution. On the other hand, it may turn out later that this was a step not towards a miraculous solution, but rather towards a rather daunting, but nevertheless necessary, solution," the historian said on his podcast "In Moscow's Shaddows" on Sunday.

Almost no preparation – no problem

Galeotti notes that preparations for this summit are being rushed, as previous meetings of this level have been planned for at least several months. However, he says it is possible that the circumstances of this meeting not only please both participants, but also fit in perfectly with their understanding of politics and governance.

"There is no serious preparation for the meeting. But could it be that this is exactly what both Trump and Putin like? Both of them are people who, in many ways, are quite suspicious of their officials' attempts to lead them. They like to be opportunists more than anything else, they like to feel like decision-makers, giants who rule the world," notes M. Galeotti.

"In many ways, they both like a chaotic and dynamic environment, where no one is sure which direction they will turn, and where there is no need to make decisions in advance, but simply to choose an option when the opportunity arises. So, in a sense, this is a classic example of how they both understand the art of governance. Both understand it not in a bureaucratic style, but in a more heroic one. (According to the latter, governance is done by a great man - ELTA) who, when certain opportunities arise, grabs history by the scruff of the neck," he adds.

Different aspirations, but would the same result be satisfactory?

As US President Donald Trump's abbreviated ultimatum to Russia to end the war in Ukraine or face severe economic sanctions on both the aggressor country and its trading partners expired last Friday, the world's attention had already turned to the planned negotiations between him and his Russian counterpart.

The US president has repeatedly declared his desire to end the war in Ukraine (and during the recent presidential election campaign, he boasted that he could do it within 24 hours), and Trump is repeating the same motive before this meeting in Alaska.

At the time, there was less clarity about Putin's goals, which, according to Galeotti, could be more than one. However, according to the expert, one of them could undoubtedly be the desire to"poison" the recently improving relations between the US and Ukrainian presidents.

"It is unlikely that Putin will go to Alaska with a single plan of attack, a single goal. He will have a whole list of things he wants, and he will try to get as many of them as possible. One of those things, of course, is the desire to poison the improving relationship between Zelensky and Trump, thereby further destroying the prospects for any American assistance. (...) The main goal may be to show Zelensky in the worst possible light," notes M. Galeotti.

If the US and Russian leaders reach an agreement in Alaska that Zelensky cannot approve, such an outcome, Galeotti speculates, could satisfy not only Putin, but also Trump.

"It cannot be ruled out that the main purpose of peace (negotiations – ELTA) is to allow Trump to get away with saying: 'Well, I was ready to punish not only Russia, but also China, India and everyone else who buys Russian oil, etc., but we still managed to reach an agreement - only the Ukrainians did not agree.' This would flatter Trump's honor, and Putin would get what he wants, as well as the satisfaction of his first meeting with the US president since the invasion began," M. Galeotti reasons.

However, according to the expert, there are also assumptions to state that V. Putin would be interested in some kind of agreement to end hostilities. Specifically, freezing the current front lines and, for example, agreeing to stop long-range missile strikes. Among other things, Russia would thus maintain control over part of Ukraine's territories and therefore prevent it from completely separating from it.

"In the short term, this means a triumph for (Putin - ELTA). He gets what his propagandists will consider a huge victory over the numerous hostile NATO forces (...), which will mean that with the easing of sanctions, the overly strained economy will be somewhat relaxed, the likelihood of any political resistance will decrease and, in general, there will be a feeling that the West, traditionally characterized by attention deficit syndrome, will soon re-establish relations with Russia, which will be beneficial to Putin," the expert emphasizes.

The political future of V. Zelensky as Ukrainians grow tired of war

Theoretically, freezing the current front lines and agreeing to cease air strikes with long-range missiles or drones, the expert reasons, would also benefit Ukraine, at least in that the country could"take a breather and perhaps restore its air defense systems" and develop its military-industrial capabilities.

M. Galeotti also points out that according to the latest Gallup poll, as many as 69 percent of Ukrainians who participated in it are in favor of peace through negotiations, and only 24 percent are in favor of fighting on the battlefield until victory. Therefore, according to the expert, there is no shortage of preconditions for Zelensky to agree to ceasefire conditions that are even distasteful to him (if only because of the de facto surrender of territory to the occupiers, which the Ukrainian president assured over the weekend that he would not do).

However, whether V. Zelensky chooses to reject ceasefire conditions that are completely unacceptable to him, or to accept at least militarily rational ones, responding, among other things, to the mood in Ukrainian society, the paradox, according to M. Galeotti, is that in either case, the Ukrainian president may remain a scapegoat in the eyes of the nation.

"Some Ukrainians will fear that refusing to accept any of Trump's proposals will mean we will once again face the danger of the United States turning its back on us. But others will use this as a pretext to accept an agreement they consider shameful because they are tired of war," Galeotti quotes a veteran Ukrainian diplomat as saying.

"Wanting to make a deal doesn't mean you want any deal, let alone this one. Let alone a deal that more or less means this: okay, right now we're giving up almost 20 percent of our territory and about 7 percent of our population. (...) Zelensky can say 'no' to anything, but there will almost certainly be consequences. (...) In the same way, he can theoretically say 'yes' to anything, but again he will face consequences," he notes.

"Even if this were an agreement that many Ukrainians understand is necessary, (...) I can't shake the feeling that they will want to shift the blame onto Zelensky," the British historian reasons.

"I have a nagging feeling that (remaining in office – ELTA) after such an agreement would be very difficult," M. Galeotti summarizes the prospects for V. Zelensky's political future.

Summing up the significance of the summit planned for August 15 in Alaska, even if no agreement is reached, the expert emphasizes that it should still be considered a small step forward.

"If (the meeting - ELTA) helps us better understand what Putin will and will not accept, what the Americans will and will not accept, and, of course, what Ukraine can and cannot accept, it will be a small step forward. If we can test what Putin would consider an acceptable peace, this will be useful," concludes M. Galeotti.