By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The White House is contemplating inviting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to Alaska, where President Donald Trump is slated to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin next week. Although no visit has been finalized, the possibility of a trilateral summit is being discussed. This development follows Trump’s announcement of a meeting with Putin on August 15th, aimed at securing a ceasefire in Ukraine, despite initial conditions for the meeting involving Zelenskyy. While the exact nature of any potential meeting between Zelenskyy and Putin remains uncertain, diplomatic efforts are intensifying, spurred by Trump’s special envoy’s meeting with Putin and proposed ceasefire outlines.
Read the original article here
White House is considering inviting Zelenskyy to Alaska, and already, the potential implications are swirling. It seems the idea itself is met with a mix of skepticism and outright distrust, with many viewing it as a potential trap. The core worry seems to be the anticipated dynamic between Donald Trump, who’s apparently spearheading the initiative, and the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The general sentiment is that Trump, given his past actions and perceived affinity for Vladimir Putin, is not to be trusted in a situation that could determine the fate of Ukraine.
The concerns run deep. Several comments express fear for Zelenskyy’s safety, suggesting the possibility of an assassination attempt. The proximity of Alaska to Russian airspace is also flagged as a significant security risk. The general worry is that the meeting could serve as a means for humiliation or arm-twisting, a setting designed to pressure Zelenskyy into unfavorable concessions. There’s a sense that Trump might be inclined to appease Putin at Ukraine’s expense. Some believe that Trump’s diplomacy is ill-equipped to tackle complex international negotiations and this might not be the time to test it.
The setting in Alaska itself raises eyebrows. The choice of location is seen as unusual and potentially strategic, with some speculating on the motivations behind it. The overall feeling is that this is not a genuine attempt at peace but rather a public relations stunt. Some suggest it would be a farce, and the idea is to “blindside” Zelenskyy. There’s a suspicion that Trump might view the meeting as an opportunity to bolster his image, not to genuinely help the situation.
The absence of Ukraine’s ally, Putin from this equation, is also thought of. Some assume Putin will simply not attend. Many believe Zelenskyy should only attend with the accompaniment of an EU delegation to show that he is not alone. Others are concerned that Trump and Putin might collaborate, ganging up on Zelenskyy.
The potential dynamics within the room are also being thought about. It’s argued that the mere presence of Zelenskyy in the same room with Trump and Putin could be problematic. It could lead to the two leaders pressuring Zelenskyy. It’s suggested that it might be preferable for Zelenskyy not to attend at all, so that Trump and Putin can’t corner him.
The history of international negotiations is being pointed out too. A comparison is being made to the past situations where leaders were pressured in similar situations and their countries were subjected to great pressure.
The suggestion to wear a suit is met with sarcasm, referencing Trump’s past criticism of Zelenskyy’s attire. The idea of “screaming at him” is also being mentioned, recalling past interactions between Trump and Zelenskyy. This evokes a feeling of cynicism.
Finally, the lack of involvement of the United States, as “not technically supporting the war,” suggests this is not a legitimate effort at peace. The inclusion of JD Vance, as a possible messenger, further diminishes confidence in the proceedings.