If you’re looking for tidy endings, geopolitics is the wrong genre. President Trump and Vladimir Putin sat down in Anchorage, and—surprise—no white-smoke peace deal drifted over the Chugach. Still, the two leaders talked for hours about Ukraine, pledged to keep talking, and signaled that President Zelenskyy will now be heavily engaged. Reports suggest he’s heading to Washington next. That’s not nothing. It’s also not peace.

As a Christian conservative who really does want the shooting to stop without blessing land grabs, I’m glad the United States hosted the meeting on our turf, a short salmon’s throw from Siberia. But I’m also wary of the two classic temptations that haunt “big man” summits: cutting corners and cutting out the people who actually live with the consequences.

“Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God” (Matthew 5:9). But peacemaking isn’t the same as papering over injustice. The moral test here is simple enough for a church bulletin: any path forward must respect Ukraine’s God-given national sovereignty and not reward naked aggression. Reports say there was no ceasefire deal, and President Trump said explicitly that nothing was finalized. That puts the ball where it belongs: back into a negotiation that includes Kyiv. Good. That’s essential.

What went right

1) Talk beats trench warfare. Three hours of direct leader-to-leader talks aren’t a surrender; they’re statecraft. Refusing to speak doesn’t deter tyrants; it freezes conflict while people die. If talks can lead to a real ceasefire with teeth and monitoring, praise God for it. Reuters notes the session ran long, and that both sides signaled interest in continuing and possibly even broadening the agenda (arms control, anyone?). That’s promising, not decisive.

2) Kyiv is back in the loop. After the Alaska meeting, multiple outlets reported movement toward President Zelenskyy engaging directly with Washington. A peace process without Ukraine isn’t a process; it’s a press release. Getting Zelenskyy to D.C. quickly helps fix that optics and substance problem.

3) No premature victory laps. President Trump didn’t declare “Mission Accomplished.” He said plainly there’s no deal yet. That restraint matters. When you’re playing with the map of Europe, overpromising is dangerous.

What should make us uneasy

1) Land-for-peace rumors. In the run-up, there was chatter about “land swaps” or accepting de facto Russian control over parts of Ukraine. That’s not a peace; that’s a pause that invites the next bite. If Moscow gets rewarded for invasion, the lesson for every bully on the planet is: invade fast, negotiate slow. Ukraine’s leadership has been crystal clear that they reject giving up territory to end the war. We should, too.

2) Excluding the victim is a bad look. However you slice it, a U.S.–Russia summit about Ukraine that initially sidelines Ukraine is backwards. ABC captured Kyiv’s concern that decisions “without Kyiv’s input” are stillborn. Exactly. Any serious framework must be co-authored with Ukraine and underwritten by verifiable enforcement.

3) Sanctions relief for a “frozen conflict.” There are hints the Kremlin might accept a freeze, so long as we ease sanctions and halt NATO growth. That’s a strategic bear trap. Sanctions relief should be earned by verifiable withdrawals, not traded for a timeout. And NATO’s open door isn’t a bargaining chip for Moscow.

4) Moral clarity matters. Putin remains wanted by the International Criminal Court, and his military’s record in Ukraine is stained by well-documented atrocities. If the West acts like none of that happened, we erode the very moral capital we need to deter the next war. Peacemaking doesn’t require amnesia.

The Path Forward

Here’s what a responsible agreement would need to include:

• Ukraine at the table from start to finish, with its elected government empowered to accept or reject terms. (Not just “consulted,” deciding.)
• Ceasefire with verification, monitored by a credible third party (think beefed-up OSCE/UN mechanisms) and tied to measurable benchmarks: troop pullbacks, withdrawal of heavy weapons, and a real end to missile terror against cities.
• No recognition of territorial theft. Status questions (Donbas, Crimea) cannot be settled by brute force or foreign signatures; they must be resolved lawfully and with the consent of the people under international safeguards.
• Sanctions relief only for compliance, phased and reversible. Snap-back triggers if Russia cheats. (Because it will try.)
• Security guarantees for Ukraine that deter a round two, whether that’s NATO, NATO-adjacent, or a U.S.–Europe bilateral framework with teeth.
• Humanitarian deliverables up front: prisoner exchanges, return of deported children, demining corridors, and war crimes cooperation. Even in hard-nosed realism, mercy is not optional.

“If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men” (Romans 12:18). Living “peaceably” means building a peace that can survive bad actors, and that means deterrence and justice, not just signatures.

Holding Both Parties to Account

Republicans sometimes flirt with the illusion that strongman chemistry can shortcut centuries of Russian imperial habit. It can’t. Democrats, meanwhile, often treat any negotiation as appeasement and any weapons package as strategy, which is also wrong. We need clear ends (a just peace) and smart means (credible leverage plus diplomacy). Europe, for its part, has to stop outsourcing its security to Washington and start matching words with weapons and industry.

Kyiv has to keep its own house in order, too—clean governance builds Western staying power—but none of that excuses Moscow’s invasion. Justice starts with naming the first wrong.

The Alaska Optics and the Opportunities

Meeting in Alaska was symbolically clever: U.S. soil, Pacific posture, and a reminder Russia is our near neighbor across the Bering. There’s even talk of broader agenda items like nuclear arms control and limited economic cooperation tied to progress. Those are acceptable only as rewards for verifiable de-escalation, not as freebies. If the White House can parlay Alaska into a three-track plan—(1) ceasefire & monitors, (2) Zelenskyy-inclusive political framework, (3) revived strategic arms control—it could be the rare deal that saves lives without selling souls.

For now, let’s be sober. No deal was reached. The war—the deadliest in Europe in generations—grinds on. The task ahead is to marry moral clarity to diplomatic stamina, keep Ukraine centered, and refuse shortcuts that mortgage tomorrow’s security for today’s headlines.

And if anyone’s tempted by a grand bargain that “solves” Ukraine by amputating it? Well, Alaskan mountains are beautiful, but they’re not tall enough to hide that kind of sellout.