OSINT: Russian Forces Intensify Push Toward Dobropillya

Source: Author’s Facebook page

The Alaska meeting between the U.S. and Russian presidents was a pure coincidence, sparked by Witkoff’s ‘broken phone’ and Trump’s drive to continue his self-styled ‘peacemaking series’ by seeking an end to the war in Ukraine.

Let’s sum it up:

1. No one knows how this meeting will turn out, as it was unplanned. Of course, Putin might reread his notes on medieval history, recalling how the Polovtsy searched for Russian traces near Kyiv a thousand years ago.

Most likely, the purpose of the meeting is to test Putin’s readiness for negotiations, as described by Donald Trump and Marco Rubio. According to the U.S. president, the first two minutes will be decisive in determining the next steps.

2. A breakthrough should not be expected. The Americans themselves state this clearly.

Typically, leaders’ meetings are carefully prepared in advance: technical details are agreed upon, and preparatory work is conducted. During the meeting, only fundamental issues are discussed. The Alaska meeting is completely unconventional because no one knows what will be on the agenda. Expectations are therefore minimal. The only risk is that Trump’s desire to “end the war at any cost” could result in Ukraine paying the price—and that price could be unacceptable.

   3. Since neither Ukraine nor Europe is participating in the Alaska negotiations, any agreements on territorial concessions would be meaningless. Only Russia and Ukraine are responsible for implementing any agreements. If Ukraine is absent, the subject of bargaining could involve only Russian concessions or arrangements made with Ukraine.

The worst-case scenario for us is that Putin convinces Trump to stop supporting Ukraine, particularly with weapons funded by Europeans. It is currently unclear what Putin could offer that would be valuable enough for Trump to agree. Just a month ago, the Americans persuaded Europe to significantly increase defense budgets and spend those funds on purchasing U.S. weapons. It is therefore unclear why Washington would refuse European funding.

Over the past week, we have heard numerous statements from European leaders. It is important that they not only support Ukraine, but also explicitly back Trump’s peacekeeping mission regarding a ceasefire. Given Donald Trump’s commercial approach, it is highly unlikely he would reject European funds.

In other words, for Putin to force Trump to abandon arms supplies to Ukraine, he would need to offer something extremely valuable.

   4. The word “Arctic” is being mentioned frequently. Some suggest that Putin might offer the Americans the opportunity to develop the Arctic basin and extract oil.

However, these are entirely incomparable propositions. The Arctic is not about business. Yes, there are abundant natural resources, but extraction is extremely difficult and expensive, which is why no one has dared invest there in the past 50 years. In the Arabian deserts, it is enough to “stick” a pipe in the sand and oil flows. In the Arctic, one must practically start from scratch—build polar cities, design icebreakers, and develop the necessary infrastructure. Economically, this would only make sense at oil prices of $150–200 per barrel. Moreover, in the context of the “green transition,” as the world gradually moves away from liquid fuels, such projects make even less sense.

Thus, the Arctic is driven not by economics or profit, but by geopolitics. And the U.S. has never lacked geopolitical projects.

In other words, the only thing Putin could “sell” to Trump with real value is a ceasefire in Ukraine.

     5. Many interpretations have circulated regarding the phrase “territorial exchange.” There is ample room for speculation—the British newspaper The Times even published four illustrative maps.

I rely on what the Americans themselves say: no agreement will involve Ukraine’s surrender. Kyiv rejected proposals to hand over unoccupied territories to Russia a few months ago as frivolous.

In this context, Europe’s position is crucial. Over the past week, European leaders have repeatedly expressed support for the U.S. peacekeeping mission to achieve a ceasefire, while simultaneously emphasizing that surrender is unacceptable. Against this backdrop, negotiating a Ukrainian surrender behind Europe’s back would, at the very least, call into question one’s own chances of receiving a Nobel Peace Prize.

    6. What kind of “territorial exchanges” could this involve? I addressed this in a separate post last week. When establishing a ceasefire, the first step is to determine a demarcation line. During hostilities, armies often become intermixed, making it difficult to ascertain who controls a given settlement. As part of technical procedures, the parties agree on which territories remain under whose control. The demarcation line cannot run through the middle of a street—it must be clear where one army’s zone of control ends and the other begins.

Everything does not need to follow this procedure exactly, but this framework aligns with many of the facts we currently know.

Time is limited. While it cannot be ruled out that the parties might agree to something Ukraine cannot accept, the most likely outcome of the meeting appears to be the absence of any major decisions. Putin will not agree to peace, and Trump will not concede on the mythical Arctic. At most, they may declare a “truce in the air,” which both Russia and Ukraine could easily accept, since the past three and a half years have shown that strikes on rear cities do not directly affect the frontline situation.

Also, follow “Pryamyi” on Facebook, Twitter, Telegram, and Instagram.

• Materials published in the “OPINIONS” section reflect the opinion of the author of the publication, who bears full responsibility for the accuracy of the information.
• The editorial staff of prm.ua may not share the opinions expressed in the author’s material.
• The owner of the webpage in the “OPINIONS” section is the author of the publication.