Hammad Kahlun
Scandinavian News Agency – Finland
Dr. Artis Pabriks, former Latvian defense minister and head of the Northern Europe Policy Centre, has shared his assessment of the potential outcomes from a possible Trump–Putin meeting. His remarks follow US envoy Witkoff’s recent visit to Moscow, which stirred media speculation and public optimism about a possible peace breakthrough in the Ukraine–Russia conflict.
According to Pabriks, under the right circumstances, both a direct Trump–Putin meeting and even a trilateral discussion involving Ukraine’s President Zelensky could occur. However, he remains doubtful this would result in a fair and lasting peace.
His scepticism stems from the deep differences in the positions of Washington and Moscow. Trump has publicly said his aim is to “end the war,” which in practice could simply mean freezing the front lines, while Putin continues to demand far-reaching concessions — from recognition of occupied territories to Ukraine’s demilitarisation and a restriction on its independent foreign policy.
US Secretary of State Mark Rubio has cautiously noted that compromises will be necessary on both sides. In reality, Pabriks warns, this could require major concessions from Ukraine while allowing Russia, the aggressor, to secure significant advantages.
Reports suggest a draft agreement discussed in the Kremlin may include six main elements: an immediate ceasefire; de facto recognition of Russian control over captured regions; the removal of key Western sanctions; and the resumption of Russian oil and gas imports. NATO’s future expansion would not be formally blocked, nor would military aid to Ukraine be prohibited.
If accurate, such a deal would heavily favour Moscow and risk planting the seeds for future instability in Europe.
Pabriks outlines three main dangers:
- Political optics – Merely holding a Trump–Putin summit would hand Moscow a symbolic victory, echoing historic moments like the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact when outside powers decided the fate of smaller nations.
- Strategic breathing room – Russia could use the ceasefire to consolidate control over occupied areas, present it domestically as a win against both Ukraine and the West, and normalise border changes achieved through force.
- Economic revival – The return of oil and gas trade would strengthen Russia’s economy, end its Western isolation, and widen rifts between allied states, without curbing its partnership with China.
Even if Russia appears to drop demands such as vetoing NATO enlargement or blocking Western arms to Ukraine, Pabriks argues, these would be superficial gestures — as Moscow never had such rights to begin with.
About The Author
