Where Russia Once Left America: The Trump-Putin Meeting in Alaska - A Documentation of Hour Zero

Alaska - that vast, icy outpost of America, where the Bering Strait leaves only 88 kilometers between two world powers, will on August 15, 2025, become the stage for a meeting whose historical irony is hard to surpass. There, where Russia 158 years ago, for 7.2 million dollars - less than two cents per acre - gave up the largest territory in American history, Donald Trump now plans to receive Vladimir Putin. It is as if history were writing its own bitter punchlines: in that place where the Tsarist Empire in 1867 buried its North American ambitions and thereby unknowingly laid the foundation for America’s dominance in the Pacific, the leaders of both nations will now negotiate the reordering of European borders.

The announcement came on August 8, 2025, of all days, the very day Trump’s self-imposed deadline for Putin expired - either a ceasefire or tougher sanctions. On his platform Truth Social, Trump wrote: “The much-anticipated meeting between me as President of the United States of America and President Vladimir Putin of Russia will take place next Friday, August 15, 2025, in the great state of Alaska. Further details to follow.” The historical parallel is striking. When US Secretary of State William Henry Seward signed the purchase agreement with Russian envoy Eduard de Stoeckl on March 30, 1867, Russia had just suffered a crushing defeat in the Crimean War. The state coffers were empty, the cost of defending the distant colony unaffordable. Tsar Alexander II decided to sell to America, also to prevent Great Britain, Russia’s archrival in the Pacific, from seizing the territory in the event of war. The American press mocked the purchase as “Seward’s Folly,” as “Seward’s Icebox,” as “Andrew Johnson’s Iceberg Garden.” The New York World scoffed: “Russia has sold us a squeezed orange!”

Today, in 2025, as Russian troops fight their way through Ukrainian territory, the front line stretches for roughly 1,000 kilometers from the northeast to the southeast, painting a grim picture. In the Pokrovsk region in the eastern Donetsk area, the fiercest battles are raging. There, Russia is attempting, with massive use of artillery and tanks, to push into the neighboring Dnipropetrovsk region.

Ukraine is suffering from an acute manpower shortage - the losses of the past two and a half years have left deep wounds. In the northern Sumy region, Ukrainian forces are tying down Russian units to prevent them from being redeployed as reinforcements to Donetsk. In Zaporizhzhia, where Russia controls parts of the territory but not the entire region it claims to have “annexed,” both sides are digging in.

A commander of a drone unit of the Spartan Brigade in Pokrovsk, who gives only his call sign Buda, sums up the mood at the front: “It is impossible to negotiate with them. The only option is to defeat them. I would wish they agree and all this stops, but Russia will not agree to that. It does not want to negotiate. So the only option is to defeat them.”

The choice of Alaska as a meeting place is more than geographic expediency - it is a symbolically charged location full of historical references. Here, where Tsar Alexander II once traded the costs and logistical difficulties of a distant colony for hard dollars after the disaster of the Crimean War of 1853-56 had emptied Russian coffers, Trump now plans to receive Putin. It is the first time since 2015 that the Russian president will set foot on American soil.

At the upcoming meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin in Alaska, an inconspicuous but crucial player could play a central role: the only satellite uplink truck in the state. The vehicle, now owned by Tudor Road Studios, is equipped with a fully functional, redundant KU system and enables stable live transmissions even in remote regions, independent of the sometimes unreliable local network infrastructure. Industry insiders recall: this appears to be the former transmission vehicle of station KTUU - the very vehicle the newsroom was once especially proud of, whose acquisition was even highlighted in a segment with anchor John Tracy. Those who need access must contact the operator directly in advance - in a situation where exclusive access to this technology could quickly become a strategic factor.

The run-up to this summit reads like a chronicle of diplomatic failures. Trump, who boasted during the campaign that he could end the war within 24 hours, had to experience how reality crushed his promises. His special envoy Steve Witkoff met with Putin in Moscow on August 6 - a meeting Trump described as “highly productive.” But while Witkoff and Putin were talking, the dying at the front continued unabated. The Russian army is advancing slowly but steadily, paying a high price in lives and materiel, continuing to bomb Ukrainian cities.

Trump himself had to admit his frustration: “When these weapons start going off, it is terribly hard to get them to stop again.” It is the admission of a man who had underestimated the complexity of the war. His threat of sanctions fizzled out ineffectively. Instead, on August 7, he imposed 50 percent punitive tariffs on India - retaliation for India’s continued oil purchases from Russia. It seems like a desperate attempt to apply pressure indirectly where direct pressure has failed. The Institute for the Study of War, that Washington think tank whose analyses echo through the capital like grim prophecies, stated unambiguously on August 7: “Putin remains uninterested in ending his war and is seeking to secure bilateral concessions from the United States without meaningfully engaging in a peace process.” The analysts added: “Putin continues to believe that time is on Russia’s side and that Russia can outlast Ukraine and the West.”

Where will Volodymyr Zelenskyy be while Trump and Putin are meeting in Alaska? The answer is as sobering as it is symbolic: he will not be there. Trump made it clear that he wants to speak with Putin first. “We will have a meeting with Russia, start with Russia,” he said. The idea that Ukraine’s fate will be negotiated without Ukraine evokes in Europe grim memories of Munich 1938. A White House official told the Associated Press that a US-Russian summit without Putin’s agreement to meet with Zelenskyy would be “less likely” - yet this position already seems to be softening.

Putin’s diplomatic offensive in the days before the summit - a flurry of phone calls with Xi Jinping, Narendra Modi, and the leaders of South Africa, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Belarus - points to intense preparation. The Kremlin said Xi had “expressed support for resolving the Ukraine crisis on a long-term basis” - a formulation that leaves much room for interpretation. Sergei Markov, a Kremlin-connected analyst in Moscow, interprets these calls optimistically: “It means that for the first time some kind of real peace agreement has been reached.” But while Markov speaks of peace, Russian troops continue to advance at the front. China, North Korea, and Iran have supported Russia’s war effort with weapons and materiel, as American officials confirm. The legal and political hurdles to a compromise are enormous. The Ukrainian constitution categorically prohibits the cession of territory without parliamentary approval or a national referendum. Even if he wanted to, Zelenskyy could not simply hand over territory. Russia, on the other hand, insists on recognition of its “annexations” of four Ukrainian regions - Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson - even though it does not fully control parts of these territories. It is as if one were negotiating the sale of a house whose rooms are partly still occupied by others.

The price Ukraine could pay is staggering. Trump’s own words on August 8 sound like an echo from another time: “It is very complicated. But we will get some things back, and we will trade some things. There will be an exchange of territories, to the benefit of both sides.” But who exactly gives Trump or Putin the moral and political authority to negotiate the fate of other countries as if they were goods in a bazaar? It is alarming how many media outlets quote these words as if they were a simple purchase receipt or an inspection report - without questioning the moral implications.

At least from politics and diplomacy come clearer tones. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas warned that any negotiation excluding Ukraine or Europe is dangerous and reminiscent of the disastrous appeasement toward Russia. German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius declared it wrong to make concessions before negotiations even begin. His French counterpart Sébastien Lecornu cautioned that peace must be “achieved through strength, not through weakness.” From the US, John Bolton, former national security adviser under Trump, voiced sharp criticism: Trump would, in effect, be surrendering to Putin even before talks began. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk called the situation “very unfortunate,” but also stressed that relations with Trump would have to be restored in the long term, and recently expressed hope the conflict could at least be “frozen.” International commentators, meanwhile, warned that many fail to see how skillfully Russia could manipulate such a summit - much like Trump’s staged encounters with North Korea. The picture that emerges is one in which the price Ukraine could pay is staggering: if Trump’s hints about “territory exchange” became reality, land would be lost for which hundreds of thousands have given their lives since February 2022 - and the risk would be that the fundamental principles of international law would be sacrificed under the applause of some and the silence of others. Hundreds of thousands have given their lives. Every square kilometer is soaked with blood, every city has its martyrs. The thought that this sacrifice could have been in vain is unbearable for many Ukrainians.

An artillery commander in Zaporizhzhia, who calls himself Warsaw, puts it with the clarity of one who stares death in the face daily: “We are on our land, we have no way out. So we hold our position, we have no choice.” The historical irony is complete: Alaska, the territory Russia gave up in 1867 because it could not handle the costs and logistical challenges after losing the Crimean War, became one of America’s most valuable possessions. After the discovery of gold in 1896 in the Klondike, tens of thousands flocked north. Today, Alaska supplies 25 percent of America’s oil and over 50 percent of its seafood. What was mocked as “Seward’s Folly” proved to be a visionary move.

Senator Charles Sumner, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, had studied Alaska extensively in 1867 before persuading the skeptical Senate to ratify the purchase agreement. He immersed himself for days in over a hundred books, maps, journals, and reports in various languages. “I live with seals and walruses and black foxes,” he wrote to a friend during his intensive studies. His three-hour speech before the Senate on April 8, 1867, turned the skepticism of many senators into support. Without Sumner’s meticulous preparation and passionate advocacy, the Alaska purchase might never have happened. The treaty was finally approved by the Senate on April 9, 1867, and on October 18, 1867, Alaska was formally handed over to the United States.

Today, 158 years later, as Putin prepares to set foot on American soil for the first time since 2015 - his last visit was to the UN General Assembly in New York - the question arises: will this meeting go down in history as the moment peace was born? Or will it, like so many summits before, be just another stop on the long, bloody road of a war that has already lasted longer than World War I? The signs are poor. Russia’s army continues to advance despite enormous losses. Ukraine is bleeding dry but continues to fight doggedly. Europe fears that decisions will be made over its head. Trump is under pressure to fulfill his campaign promise but has few levers of pressure at hand. Putin can wait - he believes that time is on his side, that the West will tire.

“The atmosphere of hatred and impunity for Russian sadists, deliberately cultivated in the Russian Federation, has triggered a cumulative effect in which the conveyor belt of death has slipped from the government’s control. This is one of the clearest signs of the weakness and poor governance of the regime - no matter what it claims,” said Mykhailo Savva, an expert at the Center for Civil Liberties.

The reality is sobering: both sides are miles away from a compromise. Ukraine insists on the restoration of its territorial integrity, including Crimea. Russia not only demands recognition of its territorial gains but also the “demilitarization” and “denazification” of Ukraine - code words for the destruction of Ukrainian statehood. Between these positions lies a chasm that even Trump cannot easily bridge. In the end, the meeting in Alaska, this land of extremes and endless horizons, may prove only one thing: that some conflicts cannot be solved by handshakes and communiqués. Where once Russia gave up an empire for 7.2 million dollars that turned out to be a treasure trove, today it is trying to create an empire by force that costs it billions and leaves it internationally isolated. History will render its verdict. But while Trump and Putin pore over maps in air-conditioned rooms, haggling over “territory exchange” and “security guarantees,” the dying continues. In Pokrovsk, in Zaporizhzhia, in Sumy. Every day that passes adds another chapter to the Ukrainian tragedy. And the question remains: at what price will this war end?

Investigative journalism requires courage, conviction – and your support.