Anchorage fallout: Reports say Trump backs Donbas handover plan as Europe’s “coalition of the willing” convenes

What was put on the table in Alaska

Multiple outlets report that Vladimir Putin outlined a plan at the Aug. 15 Alaska summit in which Ukraine would withdraw from the Donbas (Donetsk and Luhansk), while Russia would freeze battle lines elsewhere and issue a written pledge not to invade Ukraine again. According to officials cited by The New York Times, Donald Trump appeared to endorse this approach as the quickest path to a peace deal, and indicated he would press it with Volodymyr Zelensky in Washington. Putin also floated additional conditions, including restoring Russian as an official language in Ukraine, while publicly portraying the talks as frank and productive.

After the summit, Trump posted that a comprehensive peace agreement was preferable to a mere ceasefire, marking a shift from earlier rhetoric focused on an immediate truce. European and U.S. media similarly described the core trade: full control of Donetsk and Luhansk for Russia in exchange for frozen front lines in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia and a promise to halt further advances. Russia presently controls nearly all of Luhansk and around 70% of Donetsk, underscoring why Donbas is central to Moscow’s terms.

Kyiv’s red lines

Zelensky has repeatedly rejected any deal that cedes Ukrainian territory, warning that abandoning entrenched positions in Donbas would create a springboard for future Russian offensives. He has called such concessions unconstitutional and strategically dangerous, emphasizing that Donbas defenses were built over years to blunt Russian advances. Kyiv insists that meaningful negotiations require robust security guarantees and, at minimum, a ceasefire context to deter renewed aggression. Independent assessments have cautioned that giving up remaining Ukrainian‑held areas in Donetsk would force Ukraine to abandon a “fortress belt” of layered defenses, potentially shifting the front westward and exposing key cities, a risk highlighted by think‑tank analysis referenced in European reporting.

Europe’s stance and the Sunday huddle

European leaders moved to coordinate ahead of Zelensky’s Monday visit to Washington, convening a Sunday video call co‑chaired by French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer. The “coalition of the willing” — a grouping of more than 30 countries prepared to underwrite security guarantees and even a reassurance force after hostilities cease — reiterated core principles: peace cannot be decided without Ukraine; borders must not be changed by force; credible security guarantees are essential; and meaningful talks should occur under a ceasefire or significant cessation of hostilities. 

Leaders also signaled readiness to tighten sanctions if Moscow declines a ceasefire, and several have floated the need to be prepared to deploy support forces after a deal, while ruling out limits on Ukraine’s armed forces or its cooperation with partners. The Sunday coordination call aims to present a unified front before Ukraine’s talks in Washington, amid concerns that any land‑for‑peace framework could sideline European security architecture and set a damaging precedent.

Why Donbas is the fault line

Donbas is Ukraine’s industrial heartland and a strategically fortified zone. Control of Donetsk and Luhansk would hand Russia near‑complete dominance over eastern Ukraine’s energy and heavy‑industry base and erode Ukraine’s core defensive line. Analysts note that Donetsk’s layered fortifications — trenches, bunkers, minefields, and urban strongholds — have been pivotal in delaying Russian advances since 2014. Relinquishing those positions could open pathways toward major Ukrainian cities in the east and center if Russia renewed hostilities, which is why Kyiv views any withdrawal absent ironclad guarantees as untenable. 

The current military map underscores the stakes: Russia holds most of Luhansk and roughly 70% of Donetsk, while Ukrainian forces defend a shrinking but highly strategic footprint under intense pressure near cities such as Pokrovsk.

What happens next

Trump is set to meet Zelensky in Washington, with reports suggesting he will press the Donbas proposal and float strong U.S./European security guarantees short of NATO membership. European leaders are working to align positions and bolster Zelensky’s hand, wary that a rushed land‑swap could fracture Western unity and weaken deterrence. Some reporting indicates Trump aims to rapidly test a trilateral format with Putin and Zelensky if Monday’s talks show traction, though European capitals stress that any settlement must be Ukraine‑led and grounded in durable guarantees rather than paper pledges from Moscow.

Analysis: Three plausible pathways — and their risks

A land‑for‑peace deal would end fighting fastest on paper, but it carries two systemic risks: rewarding territorial conquest and betting on Russian assurances with a poor enforcement record. Even with U.S./European security guarantees, the loss of Donbas’s “fortress belt” could degrade Ukraine’s long‑term security unless any pact includes verifiable force posture limits, snap‑back sanctions, and an immediately deployable reassurance force with clear rules of engagement. 

A ceasefire‑first pathway, favored by many European leaders, preserves Ukraine’s defenses while talks proceed and provides space to codify guarantees — but it risks becoming a frozen conflict if negotiations stall. The third path is drift: continued fighting punctuated by episodic diplomacy. Given battlefield momentum and political calendars, the near‑term center of gravity likely sits between ceasefire‑first and a narrowly scoped freeze tied to concrete, externally backed guarantees. 

The indicator to watch this week is the specificity of any U.S./European security language: the closer it moves to Article‑5‑like commitments and a ready‑to‑deploy reassurance force, the more feasible a pause becomes without sacrificing Ukraine’s long‑term deterrence.

In blunt terms: the war stops quickly only if Kyiv accepts territorial concessions, but that outcome is neither inevitable nor necessarily stabilizing. Durable peace will hinge less on lines on a map than on whether enforcement, verification, and credible deterrence accompany any map changes. Without those pillars, a hurried deal risks setting the stage for the next war rather than ending this one.