The Current - What’s at stake as Trump and Putin meet on Ukraine

Episode Date: August 14, 2025

U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin are set to meet in Alaska on Friday to discuss a possible ceasefire in Ukraine. We hear from Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze, a Ukrainian MP who says leaving her country out of the talks is a win for Putin and ignores those living under Russian occupation. Plus, Brookings Institution foreign policy expert Michael O’Hanlon and Atlantic Council’s Peter Dickinson on what the two leaders might hope to gain, and whether the talks could bring the war any closer to an end.

Guess who just bundled their home and auto with Desjardin insurance? Well, look at you, all grown up and saving money. Yes, I am. Mom told you to do it, didn't she? Yes, she did. Get insurance that's really big on care. Switch and you could save up to 35% on home insurance when you bundle home and auto. Dejardin Insurance, here for your home, auto, life, and business needs.

Certain conditions apply. This is a CBC podcast. Hello, I'm Matt Galloway, and this is the current podcast. This is a listening exercise for the president. Look, only one party that's involved in this war is going to be present. And so this is for the president to go and to get, again, a more firm and better understanding of how we can hopefully bring this war to an end. A listening exercise. That's how the White House is describing tomorrow's meeting between U.S. President Donald

Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. But for Ukraine, listening from the sidelines is not the same as being heard. Ukrainian president, Vladimir Zelensky, is not invited to the summit in Anchorage, Alaska, where Trump and Putin will discuss whether a peace deal can be reached between Russia and Ukraine. But Zelensky has been urging Trump to give him a seat at the table, saying, quote, it is impossible to talk about Ukraine without Ukraine. Ivana Klimpush Sinsadze is Ukrainian MP and chair of the Parliamentary Committee on Ukraine's integration into the EU. And she joins us from Kiev. Hello. Hi. Hello.

We just heard White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt talking about these talks with Russia as a listening exercise for President Trump. What do you think of that definition? Well, first and foremost, I don't think that for listening exercise, you had to reward Mr. Putin by being invited to the United States of America and actually breaking the whole Western isolation for this international criminal that has been actually dieted also by the through the international criminal court. So, but if it is about listening, then we would hope that no decisions without Ukraine could be taken there. And I hope that listening is not also trying to agree with conditionalities that Putin would put on the table in order to even consider the ceasefire,

which should be from our part of view, totally unconditional. You say the Western isolation, do you mean that Trump shouldn't be meeting with Putin in the first place? I don't think that at this point Putin has shown any willingness to change his behavior, to change or render somehow the goals of the war and unprovoked. aggression that it has started against, he has started against Ukraine. And thus, it seems to be every word as opposed to inserting pressure upon Russia and then maybe seeing whether he can be talked to because he would really show some signs of changing behavior. What pressure would you like to see? I mean, we've heard Donald Trump say that if he doesn't come through with

a peace deal, there will be more sanctions, potentially tariffs. Is that not enough? Well, we have heard some ultimatums from President Trump that did not actually materialize. And as a result, we see the readiness to listen to Mr. Putin, what he has to say as opposed to first inserting pressure, and then seeing how he responds to that. So I think it has to be about coordination of the common action of the free world, so the United States and European partners, because it is about Ukrainian security, European and global. security and the precedent could be like really having huge impact on the global security and national interests of many countries in the world. And then it would have to be about discussing something with Putin. What are you hearing from your own constituents about this meeting? There is a lot of worry going around. I think there is some hope after yesterday's meeting

conversation between the European leaders, President Zelensky and President Trump, that at least some very clear unacceptable points for Ukraine and for Europe have been raised and hopefully have been not only listened to but heard and accepted by the United States administration. But at this point, I think there is a big distrust to President of the Russian Federation in terms of his readiness to actually finish the war on the conditions that would not be his. Right. And we've heard President Trump talk about some kinds of concessions from Russia, potentially even exchanging land, although it's unclear what that exchange entails. Are Ukrainians open to that at all, that idea of exchanging land?

I think it sounds absolutely surrealistic because the war is happening on the Ukrainian. soil on the Ukrainian territory. So I cannot imagine how Ukrainian politicians, Ukrainian citizens are actually getting ready for exchange their own land for some other parts of their own land. I don't think that this is absolutely feasible. Moreover, I don't think that there is anybody in Ukraine that would go into recognition of the Jure occupation

and the Jure Russian presence on the, Ukrainian soil, according to international law, that's totally not possible. And also, you know, it's really about like concerted pressure on Russian Federation, more military support to Ukraine that could alter the situation on the ground and could pressure Russian Federation in changing its behavior. We heard U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance say, you know, there can't be endless support for Ukraine from the U.S. And if the European Union is so concerned about this, why don't they support the Ukrainian fight more than it currently already is? What do you make of that?

I think our European partners have made it pretty clear that they are ready to pay for the military equipment that could be bought in the United States to support Ukraine. However, I also think that it is in absolutely national security interest of the United States to back up Ukraine, back up the international law, and make sure that the borders cannot be redrawn by force. as Russia would like it to happen, because otherwise you'd have to be prepared for many other conflicts around the globe and also readiness to step in, to defend your interests in a variety of places, not only in Ukraine or in Europe.

Do you have any faith that Washington will represent Ukraine's position in that room in Alaska? We would like to hope that Washington does not play exclusively a pretentious role of the so-called neutral facilitator, but would actually take a side of the good versus evil, which this conflict is about. It is about good versus evil. It is about being very black and wide. There are no shades of gray in this war and this conflict. So that would be our hope, but I don't think that this is really our expectation at this point. If it's not your expectation, how do Ukrainians get of this war? What is your, what is the solution? Because it so far, after three years of this, there hasn't been one. It's not three years. I think it needs a reminder. It's 11 years of this

war. And the first initial eight years, that was a very, very weak response of the West to the whole, to the whole attack and attempts to annex some of the territories, occupy some of the territories, kill people on the occupied territories and so one. And right now, you know, we are talking, we're hearing the talks about this territorial concessions or whatever, but somehow the whole discussion about the people on those territories and detention of the people, torturing of the people, deporting of the children and so on, it's not part of the discussion. Somehow it just fades away, that's the whole humane factor. So how do we get to the result of, to the end of this war is actually by

those countries who believe in the international law, those countries who believe that this is about their security and the implications on their security are taking a much clearer and much more dedicated stance

by backing Ukraine by making sure that the depression on Russian Federation is retained and is continued till the last Russian soldier leaves the Ukrainian soil. It doesn't mean that we are naive in hoping that we can

militarily win this war. But definitely through the pressure, we can. Okay. Ivana Klimbush-Zanzazzi, thank you very much for your time this morning. Thank you so much, Rebecca. Ivana Klimbush-Zanzazzi is a Ukrainian MP and chair of the Parliamentary Committee on Ukraine's integration into the EU. We are gathered here today to celebrate

life's big milestones. Do you promise to stand together through home purchases, auto upgrades, and surprise dense and dings? We do. To embrace life's big moments for any adorable co-drivers down the road. We do. Then with the caring support of Desjardin insurance, I pronounce you covered for home, auto, and flexible life insurance. For life's big milestones, get insurance that's really big on care at Dejardin.com slash care. On the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz comes an unprecedented exhibition about one of history's darkest moments. Auschwitz, not long ago, not far away,

features more than 500 original objects, first-hand accounts, and survivor testimonies that tell the powerful story of the Auschwitz concentration camp, its history and legacy, and the underlying conditions that allowed the Holocaust to happen. On now exclusively at ROM. Tickets at ROM.ca. So for more on what to expect from tomorrow's meeting between President Putin and President Trump, I'm joined by two guests.

Michael O'Hanlin is a foreign policy and defense expert at the Brookings Institution, and Peter Dickinson is the Ukraine editor at the Atlantic Council. Good morning to you both. Morning. Michael, I'll start with you. This summit between President Trump and President Putin is going ahead without the Ukrainian president. Is there a chance that anything comes out of these talks? I thought your interview with the Ukrainian member of parliament was excellent for underscoring the downsides.

However, I'm still hopeful. And maybe I wouldn't bet in favor of a good outcome and certainly not an actual ceasefire. But I think that the things that President Trump's been saying this week and frankly the last two to three months are pointing in the generally better direction on his understanding of the war, its causes and what needs to be done to have any chance of ending it. And so unless he just goes in and lets himself be snowed by a, you know, quote-unquote history lesson from Vladimir Putin about how eastern Ukraine has really always been truly Russian or some other such nonsense, I think that his basic message that he's going to apply more pressure on Russia, and he already has started to in the last seven days, not in a way that I would agree with. But still, if that is what comes out of this, it may be at least a small step forward, but we'll have to see. Peter, Michael talked about the potential that Trump gets snowed by Putin in this meeting. Do you think a summit like this can be productive when Ukraine isn't at the table? Oh, absolutely, yeah.

I mean, I don't think there's any necessity for Ukraine to be at the table at this stage. It's not the norm, I think, to have all parties involved. I think America clearly has a role to play here. And it's very important to establish this, to strengthen these personal ties between Trump and Putin. So I wouldn't read too much into that. And I think the Russians certainly would not have attended if America had insisted. did on Zelensky participate. I think, in fact, that was the case that essentially the Americans did suggest or push for Zelensky to take part. And the Russians pushed back very

firmly and said, no way. It's out of the question. The Russians do not want to legitimize Zelensky or Ukraine as a state for that matter at this stage. So I think this is the best we can hope for, really. But Peter, isn't not a problem if Trump is still talking about a land swap. And if Ukraine's not at the table, how does that conversation happen? Well, it doesn't basically. I mean, Trump can suggest he can't force. I mean, I think the real issue here is not so much that Ukraine might not be at the table. The real issue is that Trump is talking about this as some sort of a real estate deal, as if he's still a property developer in Manhattan. This is not about land. This war is about empire as a key stepping stone towards reviving the Russian

empire and establishing a new world order. So, I mean, talking about territorial concessions one way or the other is not only, you know, in practical terms, an error, it's actually a fundamental misreading of the situation. So I'm hoping that at least Trump may come out of this meeting with a clear impression of what Putin is all about and what this war is all about. We did hear Michael the MP just now say, though, that, you know, in having this meeting with Putin, you know, rather than keeping Putin at an aside and sanctioned and, you know, a sort of a pariah in the Western world, giving him validation in this meeting, is that not problematic?

Yeah, I mean, the whole thing's problematic, right? The fact that we're talking about a ceasefire that whether you swap land or not would allow Russia to hold 20% of Ukraine, it's horrible. It's morally repugnant. It is a challenge to the world order to use Peters framing. But, you know, that is where we are. And we've been pretty much there for three years. And I think ending the war is indeed the top priority. Now, I don't expect miracles out of Alaska even for ending the war. But you have to talk to the other side if you're going to end. and a war. That's just reality. Peter, remind us what sorts of sanctions or tariffs is Trump talking about. We heard a lot of suggestions that there needs to be more pressure on Russia. What is the U.S. suggesting? Well, I mean, there's not a lot of direct trade between Russia and America that never has been. So there's not a lot of direct sanctions potential there. The real areas where America can apply pressure is in areas like the banking system

where America has huge influence and also on secondary sanctions in tariffs against Russia's clients, primarily the Indians and the Chinese, America has the potential to really sort of strangle and cut off Russia's sources of income. The most powerful measure that America can take of all will be efforts to reduce the market price for oil or global markets. Now, if they're able to achieve that, perhaps working with the Saudis, for example, that would have the biggest impact of all. And Trump has spoken about that. He specifically mentioned the oil price and the need to bring that down. So, you know, there are levers available to the Americans. The question is really about political will and whether Trump is ready to do that. Michael, despite all that,

do you believe this war could end without Ukraine giving up some land? Well, no. I think that Ukraine is not going to get back the majority or maybe even any of the 20 percent of its original territory that Russia has stolen, starting in 2014. And the Ukrainian member of parliament was very much in her rights to point out this war has been going on for 11 years and began with the 2014 theft of Crimea. So I think that's going to have to be. part of the outcome. I also would be surprised if Ukraine joined NATO as a result of this, but there may be ways to still protect Ukraine's sovereignty without giving it full choice about all the Western institutions that it wants to join. And Peter's right for Putin,

that would be to sort of challenge the world order, but maybe there's a way we can figure out a clever means of protecting Ukraine without really satisfying Putin's maximalist ambitions. But on the land, I don't see how Ukraine gets that back. And, Peter, you know, there's long been talk of Vladimir Putin wanting to reclaim lands lost after the fall of the Soviet Union. How was this war a manifestation of that idea? Well, Putin has never made any secret of the fact that, you know, bitterly regrets the fall of the Soviet Union. And I think a lot of Westerners don't really understand the depth of that resentment. So we need to appreciate that when the Soviet Union collapsed, it wasn't a relief for the Russian people.

It wasn't a moment of freedom for them, certainly not for many. was an imperial collapse. Russia lost around one third of its territory and in what was the former Soviet empire and around two thirds of its population. I mean, it was a massive collapse. They were plunged into poverty. Their country went from superpower status to, you know, banana republic overnight. And so, you know, he has a lot of support in Russia when he talks about reversing that or when he talks about, you know, regaining Russia's place at the top table of international affairs. And Ukraine has always been central to that. Putin sees Ukraine as part of Russia's historic heartlands. The creation of an independent Ukraine is a real symbol of the

injustice of the Soviet collapse. But it's not the end. You know, if he gets Ukraine, he's going to go further. And his ambitions stretch far further geographically and geopolitically. If you can't win this war and he can't recreate the Soviet Union, how do you think he exits the war in a way that he still has some means to hold his head high? And I think that's important to him. I think it is important to him. And I think he wants to be up there as Vladimir, great to, you know, join the pantheon of Catherine the Great and Peter the Great in Russian historical terms. But we've been pretty firm now that NATO is not going to bend on the security and safety of the Baltic states, Finland, the Nordic countries, other parts of the former

Warsaw Act. So I think as long as we keep strong Western forces on the front lines on the eastern flank of NATO, then we can secure those countries with high confidence. Putin may still try some monkey business, but I don't think he'll try on all that. attack. I think Putin has made clear more or less what his terms are. Peter's right, he has maximalist ambitions, but his minimalist terms for ending the war are to have all four of the provinces that he's been fighting for, plus Crimea, or at least certainly the eastern two, plus guarantees that Ukraine will never join NATO and limitations on Ukraine's future military. I think, you know, depending on which of those you're looking at, there may be some room for

negotiation. Right now, Putin is not willing to accept lesser terms, but maybe additional pressure and additional support for Ukraine can get us there. Peter, what do you think Ukraine needs in order to agree to a ceasefire? Well, I mean, the key issue is security guarantees. I mean, Ukraine has already de facto accepted the territorial realities of the current situation. I mean, they recognize that they're not going to get back the 20 percent of the country that is occupied. They don't want to legally cede it to Russia. They've ruled that out effectively and constitutionally Zelensky couldn't do that even if you wanted to but de facto they've basically accepted yes we will not be able to regain these territories that are currently under

Russian occupation and they will remain under Russian control you know for the foreseeable future so the territorial side of it I think from the Ukrainian point of view is you know that's fairly clear at least what they would accept of course Russia wants more but you know that's that's for the negotiations the real issue for Ukrainians is security they must have some some form of perhaps guarantee is the wrong word because maybe there's no such thing as a real guarantee, but certainly assurances or strong support that can prevent this from happening again. Because, you know, Ukrainians are well aware that Putin's ultimate goal is to destroy Ukraine, to remove Ukraine from the political map, you know, to take over the country entirely.

And he's not going to simply walk away from that. So even if they're able to stop the current war, they need to have, you know, a sense that it won't happen again and some sort of confidence that they can build their future as a country. otherwise, you know, the current situation, you know, the country's half in ruins, huge amounts of people living outside Ukraine, more people will leave. The economy will remain in the doldrums, and Ukraine's future will look very, very bleak. And of course, you know, the worse situation gets domestically, the easier the country will be to take over by the Russians. Peter Dickinson, Michael O'Hanlon, thank you for your time this morning.

Thank you. Thank you. Peter Dickinson is the Ukraine editor at the Atlantic Council, and Michael O'Hanlon is a foreign policy and defense expert at the think tank, Brookings Institution. You've been listening to the current podcast. My name is Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening. I'll talk to you soon. For more CBC podcasts, go to cBC.ca slash podcasts.