Exclusive Interview
«The Alaska Summit was only the beginning of a long negotiation process»: Interview with Thomas Graham by Alexandra Zubenko
August 26, 2025
Amid the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and a renewed wave of diplomatic activity, the world’s attention has focused on the outcomes of the recent summit in Anchorage, where the presidents of Russia and the United States met. Western media described the meeting as a “triumph for Putin,” yet no concrete agreements, including a ceasefire, were reached. What was the main result of the talks? What positions do Moscow, Washington, Kyiv, and European capitals hold regarding a ceasefire, territorial compromises, and security guarantees? These questions are addressed in an exclusive interview with PIR Center by Thomas Graham – former Special Assistant to the U.S. President and Senior Director for Russia at the National Security Council (2004-2007) and a Council on Foreign Relations expert.
The interview was conducted by Ms. Alexandra Zubenko, PIR Center Consultant.
Alexandra Zubenko: So, in the Western media, regarding the Alaska summit, I know that many outlets described it as the so-called “Putin’s triumph.” They noted that no agreement was reached on a ceasefire and that there was practically no particular outcome from the meeting. What is your assessment of this summit, and what do you see as its main outcome?
Thomas Graham: Well, first, I would say it was an important summit. It was the first serious step in what will likely be a long negotiation process aimed at ending the conflict in Ukraine. To be sure, it was in many ways a success for President Putin. He was invited to the United States and met with the president of one of the world’s leading great powers. This, I think, validates President Putin as a major global leader, and Russia as a great power, demonstrating that Russia has not been isolated on the global stage to the extent many in the West had anticipated or believed until now.
However, the meeting was shorter than initially planned, and it was clear that the discussions were very tough. There were some points of agreement, but also points of disagreement, as both presidents readily admitted at the press conference. As I said, this is just the first step in what could turn out to be a long process leading towards a successful resolution of the Ukraine conflict.
Alexandra Zubenko: One of the key US objectives was to conclude a ceasefire, whereas the Russian position was that they do not want a ceasefire alone but a comprehensive peace agreement. What is the US stance on that?
Thomas Graham: This is a very complex issue, to say the least. It would be very difficult to reach a comprehensive ceasefire in the near future due to the complexity of the issues involved, many of which are not only bilateral but concern broader European security. What I think is possible at this point is moving towards what you might call a framework agreement, an agreement on the principles and parameters that would govern a final settlement, with the understanding that once those are agreed upon, a ceasefire would be implemented, and then the parties would engage in the difficult task of filling out all the details of a comprehensive peace plan. But as I said, if the goal is a comprehensive plan prior to a ceasefire, it might take months or even years. So a more realistic approach is to agree on a framework first, then implement a ceasefire.
Alexandra Zubenko: Another important question was territorial issues. The meeting in DC on Monday showed that Ukraine is not very willing to compromise on territory. At some point, there was even the impression that they do not want to recognize any loss of control over their territories at all. Do you think the Russian and Ukrainian positions on territory are irreconcilable at this stage? What is Ukraine trying to achieve by rejecting the US proposals?
Thomas Graham: First, two key issues are under discussion: territorial issues and security guarantees for Ukraine. From what I understand, most conversations in Washington on Monday, August 19, between President Trump and Ukrainian and European leaders focused on security guarantees. Regarding territory, President Zelensky rejected what has been reported as a Russian offer that Ukraine would withdraw forces from parts of Donetsk oblast, which it still controls, in exchange for Russia freezing control lines in Zaporizhzhia and Kherson. This was unacceptable to the Ukrainians, which I think is quite understandable, they are not going to give up territory they still control.
That doesn’t mean, however, that later in the negotiation process Ukrainians would not agree to recognize, de facto, the Russian control over territories seized since February 2022 and indeed, going back to 2014 without de jure (official) recognition of those territories as Russian. I see this as a likely outcome of the negotiation process. So there is some room for negotiation on the territorial issue.
I see the Russian proposal as an initial gambit. We will see how it plays out. However, it is important to remember that the territorial issue is closely linked to security guarantees these are two interrelated issues that must be resolved satisfactorily for the war to end.
Alexandra Zubenko: Is there any clarity on how US security guarantees might be implemented?
Thomas Graham: At this point, discussions are still in early stages, so the short answer is no. Various ideas are circulating. Moscow’s own vision of security guarantees was laid out in the Istanbul communique from spring 2022. This document called on several major countries including Russia, the United States, and possibly others to guarantee Ukraine’s security, with the understanding that the guarantors would have consensus to use military force to resist any aggression against Ukraine.
For Ukrainians, this is a non-starter, as they are most concerned about aggression from Russia, not any other country. In recent days, European countries have discussed deploying military wherewithal on the ground in Ukraine, possibly with support from the US in intelligence, air power, and other means. The Kremlin has indicated this is unacceptable. The spokesperson from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov have emphasized this strongly.
So, this is an issue needing further serious discussion among the US, Europe, Ukraine, and most importantly, between the US and Russia. It’s a difficult issue but not beyond resolution, depending on how negotiations evolve over the coming months.
Alexandra Zubenko: How do you assess the role of European diplomacy before and after the DC meeting? It seems the dynamics around territorial issues changed somewhat. Before the summit, there were mixed signals from European leaders like Macron and Merz about Ukraine ceding Donetsk, but afterward, they appeared more empowered. What is your assessment?
Thomas Graham: There are many views, but generally, there is now recognition that Russia will control some internationally recognized Ukrainian territory within the 1991 borders. Russia will certainly continue to control Crimea and parts of the Donbass. Despite prior alarm among European capitals about territorial concessions, it is now accepted that to end the conflict there will likely have to be territorial compromises from Kyiv.
Most likely, this will take the form of de facto recognition of Russian control over some Ukrainian territory, but not de jure recognition. Europeans will continue to push to provide Ukraine with the means to improve its position at the negotiating table. But no key European capital believes Ukraine has or will have the military capability to drive Russia out of the areas it has occupied for the last three and a half years. Ukrainians themselves acknowledge that regaining the territory through military means is impossible and that a diplomatic process will be necessary, which will likely take years.
In a nutshell, Ukrainians face a choice between territorial integrity and maintaining their sovereignty and independence. In the end, I believe Ukrainians will prioritize sovereignty and independence and be prepared to sacrifice some territory to achieve that.
Alexandra Zubenko: One of Russia’s proposals has been that China should be a guarantor of any peace agreement. I haven’t seen any official US reaction. Do you think China might get involved?
Thomas Graham: China has been rather coy about the Ukraine conflict. They have not indicated they are prepared to actively push for an end to the conflict or play a major role in guaranteeing any peace deal anytime soon. The key question is: what role does Beijing want to play in resolving the conflict and guaranteeing any future settlement?
From the US perspective, the administration likely does not oppose Chinese involvement but has serious doubts about China’s willingness to take on a constructive and active role. There are ongoing difficult negotiations between Washington and Beijing, some of which probably concern Ukraine. But so far, there is little to suggest that Washington believes China is ready to play a significant, positive role in resolving the conflict or guaranteeing peace.
Alexandra Zubenko: Regarding European countries wanting to deploy troops in Ukraine as part of security guarantees Britain and France have expressed interest in creating an expeditionary force. Some European countries talk about NATO guarantees. Are these coordinated with Washington?
Thomas Graham: From Washington’s standpoint, there will be no NATO mission on the ground in Ukraine and no NATO guarantees to Ukraine. That said, some NATO members, such as Britain and France, have expressed willingness to put their own forces on the ground to reassure Ukraine and deter Russia. They require American support in intelligence, air power, and other means to ensure their forces’ security.
Washington understands that from Moscow’s perspective, a NATO mission in Ukraine is a red line and one of the root causes of the conflict President Putin has repeatedly cited. Therefore, any security guarantees provided will have to be outside NATO’s formal framework, even if some NATO members participate.
Alexandra Zubenko: Turning to economic cooperation between Russia and the US one of the agenda items at the Alaska Summit there was no economic cooperation agreement, but rumors circulated about potential sales of Russian oil to the United States. Do you think economic cooperation is in the US interest?
Thomas Graham: Major commercial cooperation does not occur outside a geopolitical context. Certainly, American companies have been interested in investing and working in Russia, which was true before February 2022. Many made significant profits. The profit motive remains but given events over the past few years, companies are more cautious, uncertain how Russia or the US government would view such investments long-term.
As for major projects in energy, space cooperation, Arctic development including the Northern Sea Route, there are significant commercial opportunities with geopolitical benefits for both countries.
But the political reality in Washington is that major economic deals are politically impossible without progress on resolving the Ukraine conflict. Moscow would like to separate commercial matters from the conflict, but Washington will not support that at this time.
Alexandra Zubenko: Finally, what will the success of the peace process depend on? Ukraine’s willingness? Russian flexibility? Who will be the main actor?
Thomas Graham: Success depends on all parties. At the end of the day, a formula must be found that meets the minimal security needs of both Russia and Ukraine. Given the nature of the conflict, Europe and the United States are involved as well.
The necessary negotiations are complex, involving many countries and powers. Maintaining and accelerating dialogue between Washington and Moscow is critical not only on Ukraine but broader European security and strategic stability.
Other issues prisoner exchanges, managing relations across ceasefire lines will be part of the process. These are matters for bilateral discussions between Moscow and Kyiv. Europeans will be involved in discussions on European security.
I would hesitate to say any one country is the main obstacle. Each country will defend its national interests, which is normal in international relations. The challenge for leaders, especially the US, is to develop a formula satisfying the minimal needs of all parties. Active US engagement, ongoing serious dialogue with Moscow, Kyiv, and European allies is critical. This will not happen quickly. It will likely be months before a framework agreement is reached.
But importantly, the process has begun. Since spring 2022, we have seen the first real possibility for serious negotiations that could lead to conflict resolution and address broader European security issues.
This is positive. We need to maintain momentum, and much will depend on decisions made in Washington, Moscow, and Kyiv in the coming days.
Keywords: Russia; U.S; Ukraine; NATO
RUF
E16/SHAH – 25/08/26
