WASHINGTON DC – The conspicuous exclusion of Ukrainian representation from a pivotal bilateral summit between US President Donald Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin, set for this Friday in Anchorage, has ignited widespread international disquiet and sharp criticism from Kyiv, its key allies, and even local Alaskan officials, who contend the format undermines a durable peace and risks legitimizing Russia’s territorial gains through unilateral warfare.

Alaska State Senator Löki Gale Tobin, a local Democratic representative whose constituency includes downtown Anchorage and the strategic Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, the summit’s venue, articulated a prevailing sense of unease.

Speaking to Kyiv Post on Tuesday, Tobin stated unequivocally, “Any negotiation without Ukraine at the table, leading the dialogue, is unjust.”

“Since the Russian invasion, I have joined my fellow Alaskans in supporting Ukrainian sovereignty,” she emphasized, adding, “I continue to stand by Ukraine.”

Her outspoken support for Ukrainian sovereignty highlights a domestic apprehension regarding a peace process that appears to circumvent the nation most acutely affected by the invasion of its territory by its unwelcome neighbor.

Divergent diplomatic objectives fuel skepticism

On Wednesday, the White House continued to frame the Anchorage meeting as a “listening exercise,” aimed at discerning whether Putin is willing to accept a ceasefire. However, the Kremlin’s reported conditions for a cessation of hostilities – including demands for Ukraine to relinquish the Donbas, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia regions, with areas it does not occupy – remain resolutely unacceptable to Kyiv.

President Volodymyr Zelensky has vehemently rejected any territorial concessions, asserting that such capitulation would merely serve as a “springboard for a future new offensive” and fundamentally undermine international law. He insists that any equitable peace must be underpinned by robust security guarantees for Ukrainian sovereignty.

Geopolitical analyst warns of Putin’s advantage and Western undermining

This diplomatic approach has drawn pointed criticism from security specialists.

Retired US Army Colonel Richard Williams, who had a distinguished military career and has extensive experience in NATO leadership, provided a scathing assessment to Kyiv Post. He contended that “one can safely assume that concessions on the Russian side will not be ‘fiercely disputed’ in Alaska.”

Williams dismissed the notion of the summit being a mere “listening exercise,” asserting, “one does not bring two heads of state together for a listening exercise – rather it’s normally to make decisions.”

He warned that such a meeting “directly undermines Ukraine’s, the EU’s and NATO’s potential substantive inputs,” adding that “the latter three entities should take offense where it was given!”

The retired colonel predicted that Putin, whom he described as a “shrewd tactician,” would “skillfully outmaneuver Trump and forcefully demand, not only occupied territories, but those he had hoped to bring under his control... Arguing particularly that any recent battlefield gains be disproportionately perceived in his favor.”

He concluded with a stark prediction that Trump, who, he suggested, might envision himself as a modern-day Klemens von Metternich aiming to reintroduce a “balance of power,” is “more interested in obtaining the Nobel Peace Prize than peace in Europe.”

Williams emphatically asserted that “the ‘Superpowers’ of old should not be allowed to dictate the borders of Europe.”

European allies unite in concern

European leaders have echoed these profound concerns. In their virtual assembly with Trump on Wednesday, the leaders of Germany, France, the UK, Italy, Poland, and Finland conveyed a united front.

They insisted that “the path to peace in Ukraine cannot be decided without Ukraine” and that “international borders must not be changed by force.”

While Trump reportedly offered assurances that Ukrainian interests would be safeguarded, the underlying apprehension persists: that a bilateral discussion could yield outcomes favorable to Moscow, thereby legitimizing territorial gains achieved through military aggression.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte acknowledged the necessity to “test” Putin’s intentions but emphasized the paramount importance of Ukrainian and broader European involvement in any subsequent diplomatic phases.

Local protest highlights wider disapproval

Adding another layer to the complex narrative, local activism in Anchorage is poised to challenge the perceived smoothness of the diplomatic proceedings.

The “Stand UP Alaska” group is orchestrating a protest, aiming to reinforce support for Ukrainian sovereignty and articulate strong disapproval of Putin’s presence. This grassroots movement underscores how deeply the human and geopolitical ramifications of the war are felt, even thousands of miles from the front line.

As Friday approaches, global attention will be fixed on Anchorage. The deliberations, intentionally conducted without Ukrainian representation, will not only influence the immediate trajectory of the war against Ukraine but also rigorously test the international community’s commitment to upholding principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity.