In just a few days, US President Donald Trump and Kremlin leader Vladimir Putin are set to meet face-to-face. It will be the first meeting between the leaders of the two countries since 2021. At that time, Trump's predecessor Joe Biden met with Putin in Switzerland.

The Geneva summit between the Russians and the Americans was already taking place in an extremely tense situation. The Russian army was maneuvering unannounced near the Ukrainian border, which some experts read as an attempt by the Kremlin to force a meeting with those it considers its weight class.

A few months later, the Russians launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The context of the Putin-Trump meeting has not changed much since then, as Putin once again seeks to negotiate only with those he considers his equals.

It would be wrong to expect the announced summit between the leaders of the US and Russia to bring about a definitive ceasefire in Ukraine. According to some experts, we are still at the beginning and it may take years for the warring parties to reach a final peace agreement.

In this material, we summarize how analysts assess the meeting between the two presidents and its possible outcomes before the summit.

Analyst sees no change in Russian tactics

Commentators and experts who are following the development of the Russian-Ukrainian war are so far cautious about the possible outcomes of the Putin-Trump meeting.

Tatiana Stanovaya, an analyst at the R.Politik think tank, points out that she still sees no significant change in Russia's tactics towards Trump or Ukraine. According to her, it is essentially a repetition of what we have seen since Trump's inauguration, namely that Moscow is only creating the impression that it is open to concessions and serious negotiations.

“It has been doing this for some time, but the basic position remains unchanged: Russia wants Kiev to surrender,” he states on his Telegram account. Stanovaya assumes that this negotiation will not bring peace either. “Russia will continue its campaign, and in a few months there may be a new round of talks – this time under even worse conditions for Ukraine,” he thinks.

Alexander Baunov, an expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, notes that Russia is once again trying to portray the impression that Ukraine and its allies are to blame for prolonging the war, and not itself.

"Moscow is trying to reformat the war so that it is fought where and with the means where it has more advantages, and not where it does not," he commented on the social network.

Will the Kremlin stop missile attacks?

"I wouldn't have high expectations," political scientist Maksym Nesvitalyov told Ukraine's Radio NV for a change.

According to him, there are too many contentious points in the ether to be resolved in a very short time – in this case, a few days.

"A meeting of leaders assumes some result, a guarantee of a fairly serious result. A temporary ceasefire in the air can be agreed upon at the level of advisors. There is no point in the leaders of countries meeting for this. Can something bigger be agreed upon today? I don't see any signals that would prove it," he assessed.

Nesvitlov did not mention the air ceasefire by chance. The Bloomberg agency reported a few days ago that the Kremlin is considering a proposal to suspend its air strikes against Ukraine. However, it still plans to continue the war.

"Trump needs some kind of 'gift' from Russia, a concession," Sergei Markov, a political analyst close to the Kremlin, told the agency."An air ceasefire could be such a gift," the Russian analyst believes.

3

Truce disadvantageous for Putin

But in Ukraine, they see it differently."I don't understand how such an air ceasefire would be implemented. I don't think Putin is ready for it, that it is beneficial for Putin," Ukrainian journalist Vitaly Portnikov commented on his YouTube channel, adding that if the Russians really stopped attacking with missiles or ballistic missiles, they would give up the tool with which they are destroying, for example, the Ukrainian military industry.

"The element of destroying (military) infrastructure is an element of this war," he noted.

One of the declared goals of Russian aggression is the so-called demilitarization of Ukraine. In short – the destruction of its defense capabilities.

According to Portnikov, Putin would also lose a tool for exerting pressure on the Ukrainian population."And thirdly, any air ceasefire creates opportunities, even if short-term, for investments. But the development of our economy is contrary to Russian plans," Portnikov noted.

The topic of a ceasefire"in the sky" is not new. In March, Kiev came up with this proposal, which also included a halt to fighting at sea. This happened a few days after the diplomatic fiasco in the Oval Office and the subsequent suspension of American aid to Ukraine.

"We are ready to work quickly to end the war. The first steps could include the release of prisoners, an immediate ceasefire in the skies - a ban on the use of missiles, long-range drones, bombing of energy and other civilian infrastructure - and an immediate ceasefire at sea if Russia does the same," Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said at the time, trying to appease Donald Trump after a row in the White House.

Zelensky has since regularly invited Putin to meet.

There is a question mark over the Putin-Zelensky meeting

Whether this will happen during the upcoming summit is still questionable, however.

The Kremlin leader has long made it clear that he has nothing to say to the Ukrainian leadership. However, according to the New York Times, this time the Russians have allegedly been given a condition - Trump will only meet with Putin if Putin also meets with Zelensky.

However, the Russian president indicated on Thursday that"the conditions are not yet in place" for a meeting with the Ukrainian president.

According to analyst Stanovayeva, the Russian ruler would agree to a meeting with the Ukrainian president only under one condition – if there was a pre-agreed agenda and clear results in advance. “That is still hard to imagine,” she recalled.

This was ultimately demonstrated by the negotiations in Istanbul, when it was discussed for several days whether Trump and Putin would visit them at all. Zelensky did arrive in Turkey, but it was obvious that neither the American nor the Russian president had any reason to come at this stage of the negotiations.

Now their paths may cross in the Middle East. Although it is not yet officially known who will host the US-Russia summit, the Kremlin leader has floated the idea that the United Arab Emirates could theoretically host it. These words are underlined by the fact that Putin held talks with UAE President Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan on Thursday.

The possibility of Trump and Putin meeting in an Arab country has been talked about practically since Trump's inauguration. Finally, the Americans and Russians renewed"personal contact" in Saudi Arabia, where direct talks between the countries began in the spring.

Czech expert on Russia Marek Příhoda, in our older material, for example, pointed out that for the Russians,"Arab countries have the appearance of neutral and fair players who have not used tools to weaken Russia over the past three years, for example through the supply of raw materials," and that is why they are comfortable negotiating on their soil.

3

American designs

And what exactly should be discussed during the meeting, which is scheduled to take place next week? Again, more questions arise than answers.

The Polish website Onet, for example, reported that the Americans have made several proposals to the Russians. These are said to include a ceasefire (not permanent peace), de facto recognition of Russia's territorial gains - by postponing this issue for 49 or 99 years, as well as the lifting of most sanctions imposed on Russia and, in the long term, a return to energy cooperation, i.e. the import of Russian gas and oil.

The daily further writes that the package of proposals lacks guarantees that NATO will not expand - Ukrainian ambitions to join NATO are described by the Russians as the"root cause" of the war. Moscow also did not receive the promise it had previously insisted on - that the West would stop providing military assistance to Ukraine.

There is no indication that the Kremlin wants to give up on these ultimatums, which they have been repeating for several years.

That's why some are asking the question - why did Putin agree to talks at this stage of the war?

The British BBC notes that one possibility is that the Kremlin leader hopes that engaging in dialogue with Trump could somehow influence the secondary sanctions that the White House has threatened him with. These would affect Russian energy consumers if the Kremlin does not conclude a deal, as Donald Trump has characterized it,"that will stop people dying."

"The Kremlin may feel it can convince Trump of the benefits of its terms for ending the war," BBC commentators add.

Long negotiations

Some experts point out that in the case of the Russian-Ukrainian war, one should not expect peace to be negotiated in a few weeks or months.

American political scientist Samuel Charap, for example, points out that negotiations to end the war have not even really begun.

However, the fact that the United States intervened in the process is crucial in this case, according to him. According to Charap, Ukraine and Russia would probably not have been able to agree on a ceasefire or permanent peace without the participation of the United States."The positions of the two sides are very different - and given the escalation on the battlefield, there is no reason to expect quick results. However, this does not mean that there is no point in talking," he told the website Suspilne.

Charap also pointed out that wars that last longer than a year usually do not end for at least 10 years.

“This is a statistic: once we cross the twelve-month mark, a settlement becomes much more difficult. Over time, the number of victims on both sides increases, the extent of destruction, the level of hostility. It becomes more difficult to find common ground. But almost all wars end either with an absolute victory for one of the sides or with negotiations. In the case of Ukraine and Russia, an absolute victory for someone is impossible – so I think an end to this war through negotiations is inevitable,” he added.