New start: on the Alaska summit and the Ukraine war

The much-anticipated summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin in Anchorage, Alaska, did not yield a breakthrough on the Ukraine war but appeared to narrow the gaps between their positions on how to end the conflict. While Ukraine was the most contentious issue on the agenda, the summit was significant for several reasons. Relations between the world’s two largest nuclear powers have been defined by hostility and mutual distrust. A stable, predictable relationship and the prospect of a new arms control pact — hinted at by Mr. Putin — are critical not just for stability in Eastern Europe but also for broader global stability. Yet, rebuilding Russo-American ties is inconceivable without peace in Ukraine. All sides in the Ukraine war publicly claim that they are committed to peace, but they differ sharply on how to achieve it. Ukraine and its European partners have called for an immediate ceasefire, a demand reiterated by Mr. Trump before meeting Mr. Putin. Russia has resisted calls for a ceasefire, insisting instead on a comprehensive peace agreement that addresses what Mr. Putin calls the conflict’s “root causes”. Mr. Trump appeared to endorse the Russian line when he said “the best way to end the horrific war” is to go directly to a peace agreement.

While the downside of the summit was its failure to deliver a breakthrough, the positive side is that it opened a diplomatic path that could lead to conflict resolution. Mr. Trump, who claimed that he and Mr. Putin agreed on “many points”, spoke with European, NATO and Ukrainian leaders after the meeting. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is expected to visit the White House on Monday to discuss Mr. Putin’s proposal. Mr. Trump also suggested that it is now “up to Zelenskyy” to strike a deal with Russia, “a very big power”. Russia has consistently made three core demands to end the war — recognition for the Ukrainian territories it has annexed and Ukraine’s “neutrality” and “demilitarisation”. Post-summit reports suggest that Mr. Putin is open to freezing the war along the frontlines in the south (Zaporizhzhia and Kherson) provided Russia retains full control of Donbas (Donetsk and Luhansk). A settlement could also involve Russian withdrawal in the northeast (Kharkiv). Ukraine has so far said that it would not concede land for peace. The challenge before Mr. Trump is to sustain the talks aimed at narrowing the differences further to reach a workable compromise. While it makes perfect sense to end the war on practical terms, Mr. Trump should not impose an agreement on Kyiv. Peace would prevail in Eastern Europe only if Ukraine’s security concerns are addressed and it is provided with credible assurances that Russia would not invade it again.