Russia Revives 'Anchorage Agreements' Narrative Amid Delays in Peace Talks with Ukraine

After the summit held in August between Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Donald Trump in Anchorage, Alaska, Moscow has made multiple references to the so-called 'Anchorage Agreements,' trying to frame this meeting as a basis for concluding the war in Ukraine.

Currently, as peace negotiations between Moscow and Kyiv, mediated by the United States, are delayed due to Washington's focus on the war in Iran, Russian officials are once again reviving this narrative.

In early March, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated, 'There is currently a pause (in negotiations). But we are aware of contacts that have taken place between the Americans and Ukrainians.'

Lavrov also noted, 'We see that the American side is striving to do everything possible to ensure Kyiv's consent to the understandings reached by the presidents of Russia and the United States in Alaska. We consider this approach to be the only correct one.'

These references raise a central question: what exactly did the U.S. promise Moscow, and is there an actual agreement?

Putin and Trump met in Anchorage on August 15, 2025. Their personal negotiations lasted nearly three hours, sparking speculation about possible breakthroughs in the talks.

However, immediately after the meeting, Trump sought to temper expectations, telling reporters, 'There is no agreement until there is an agreement.'

Despite this, Moscow continues to interpret this meeting as a pivotal moment.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov remarked, 'The territorial issue, which is part of the 'Anchorage formula,' holds particular significance for Russia.'

This phrase provides insight into how Moscow interprets the summit.

One of Moscow's main demands in the peace negotiations is the withdrawal of Ukraine from territories in the east of the country that Russian forces have been unable to capture militarily.

Russia has repeatedly insisted that Kyiv must withdraw its troops from the Donbas — partially occupied since 2014 — as a key condition for any settlement. This demand would require Ukraine to relinquish territories it still controls, including strategic defensive positions.

Kyiv has rejected the idea of territorial concessions and instead proposed freezing the war along the current front line. Ukraine still controls approximately a quarter of the Donetsk region, including a fortified defensive belt, as well as limited footholds in the Luhansk region.

One individual familiar with the discussions in Alaska confirmed to the Kyiv Independent that Moscow had asked Washington to pressure Ukraine to withdraw its troops from the Donbas, which includes both Luhansk and Donetsk regions.

Another element of the discussions involved the potential recognition by the U.S. of Russia's occupation of Crimea, according to the same source.

Russia illegally annexed Crimea in 2014 following a fraudulent referendum held under military occupation and without international observers.

Any move by Washington to recognize Crimea as Russian territory would contradict longstanding U.S. policy and international law.

However, the source noted that these ideas were discussed in Alaska — proposals that Moscow continues to refer to as 'understandings.'

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Galuzin reinforced this interpretation on April 1, stating that the U.S. is working to convince Ukraine to accept compromises.

He said, 'They are focusing on what is most important — the root causes of the conflict and the need to resolve them, as well as the situation on the ground.'

'Now the task is for the Americans to secure the agreement of the Ukrainian side to these proposals... The American side is currently working on this with Kyiv.'

However, one American official told the Kyiv Independent that no agreement was reached during the meeting with Putin, considering Russian narratives to be misleading.

This official also dismissed claims that Washington is trying to push Ukraine toward any alleged 'understandings,' stating that the administration's position remains that territorial issues should be resolved between Kyiv and Moscow.

At the same time, a Ukrainian official previously told the Kyiv Independent that Washington does not oppose Russian territorial claims, highlighting the uncertainty surrounding the negotiations.

This official expressed concern that the U.S. might ultimately pressure Kyiv to accept Moscow's terms, particularly regarding the Donbas.

One person familiar with the situation, who spoke on condition of anonymity, added that Russia and the U.S. 'reached a conceptual agreement in Alaska on how to wrap things up,' noting that 'the Russians base their conclusions on this.'

Apart from the essence of the discussions, Moscow's rhetoric may have a strategic communication goal.

Oleksandr Merezhko, head of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Ukrainian Parliament, described this narrative as 'a classic example of Russian propaganda.'

He noted that the concept of the 'spirit of Anchorage' resembles the diplomatic language of the Soviet era, aimed at creating an impression of dynamics without detailing actual commitments.

According to Merezhko, the term is deliberately vague and is used precisely because there is no written agreement.

An American official confirmed that no formal agreement was reached during the meeting.

Thus, Russia is attempting to extract maximum political and propaganda benefit from this summit, using it as a signal, Merezhko noted.